Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Trade Liberalisation

Nick Gibb: If she will make a statement on the latest developments in the Doha round of talks on trade liberalisation.

Patricia Hewitt: Since we launched the Doha development round in November 2001, progress has not been as fast as it should have been. In particular, we still have to conclude an agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights and access to medicines, and far more progress needs to be made on agriculture.
	In other areas, however, progress has been more encouraging. The European Union submitted its general agreement on trade in services offer to liberalise trade in services earlier this week, and detailed negotiations are continuing on non-agricultural market access in the hope of reaching an agreement on the scope of negotiations by the end of May.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that honest answer. Does she agree that the Stuart Harbison Doha round proposals to phase out export subsidies would bring worldwide gains of about $100 billion a year, which would be especially helpful for third world countries? Was she therefore surprised and concerned that the French Minister, Hervé Gaymard, said in a speech last month that he is
	"profoundly opposed to such a course of action and . . . channelling all . . . efforts into . . . making this fail"?
	Will she assure us that she will resist any attempt by the French to scupper such an important humanitarian proposal for trade liberalisation?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The gains to the developing world and to the world as whole—including the developed world—from a successful trade round will be enormous at this time of economic downturn. It is important to succeed in the round and to demonstrate that we have made progress by the time of the mid-term ministerial in Cancun in September. The hon. Gentleman will also be interested by President Chirac's recent proposals on preferential treatment for countries in sub-Saharan Africa. We welcome the fact that his statement recognised the enormous damage caused to farmers in developing countries by export subsidies on agricultural products.
	I hope that the French Government will support the process of reforming the common agricultural policy because that will be essential if we are to make a better proposal in the Doha round.

John Cryer: Where is the evidence that liberalisation and privatisation benefits third world countries? Surely the examples of Rwanda and Tanzania a few years ago and the recent failed attempt to privatise water in the third world tell us something about the sins of over-enthusiastic neo-liberalism.

Patricia Hewitt: Nothing in World Trade Organisation rules or the general agreement on trade in services requires either developing or developed countries to privatise any of their public services, including water. Indeed, the GATS offer that the EU has just published explicitly excludes our public services and public utilities. Attempts to privatise water in developing countries had nothing whatsoever to do with GATS or the WTO.
	Although I agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely important to get the phasing of market opening in developing countries right and to accompany that with appropriate measures for governance and effective regulation, we only have to compare the experience of African countries with that of many countries in south-east Asia over the past 30 years to appreciate how trade in a more liberal world economy that can be made fair as well as free benefits poor people in poor countries.

Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that what would have been difficult negotiations will be made more difficult by the rifts between the United States and some countries in western Europe? Does she agree that the best position for a free-trading country such as the United Kingdom to adopt is to be even-handed in criticising and condemning both the totally unacceptable protectionist interests in Europe that have prevented the EU from making a meaningful offer on agriculture and, equally, the aggressive unilateralism of the US that is manifested in its illegal action on steel and its continued refusal to put the developing world's wider interests in medical technology before the interests of its pharmaceutical companies?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman may remember that when the United States imposed tariffs last year on steel imports, including those from the United Kingdom, I condemned them roundly in the House and outside it. The steel tariffs are clearly unlawful under World Trade Organisation rules and I hope very much that the American Administration—I have said this to them privately—will not appeal against the ruling that found the tariffs contrary to WTO rules but will instead remove them at the earliest opportunity.
	If I may, I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my recent speech in Brussels setting out precisely the Government's views on the need to create a framework of rules for trade that is fair as well as free and tackling the highly damaging protectionism in Europe, especially in relation to agriculture, and in the United States, where it has arisen in relation to steel.

Linda Perham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that progress on the Doha round depends on the trade rules, in particular the special and differential treatment rule and the multilateral rules framework, and that that will assist investment and competition? We cannot leave it all up to negotiations at Cancun. We must assist developing countries or we will lose the opportunity that we now have.

Patricia Hewitt: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the things that we have discussed in great detail with the developing countries is the issue of special and differential treatment to ensure that the new round reflects the different stages of development that different countries have reached. The House will recognise that if we can make the necessary progress in the Doha negotiations, we will not only give a much needed boost to the world economy, but hold out hope to developing countries, which more than anything else want to earn and trade their way out of poverty rather than being trapped in dependence on aid.

Registration Officers

Brian Iddon: If she will make a statement on the employment rights of registration officers.

Nigel Griffiths: The Government agree that all workers should have protection.

Brian Iddon: May I first declare an interest, as the honorary patron of the Society of Registration Officers in England and Wales?
	Today is the sixth anniversary of the Labour Government. For most of that time, I have dealt with six different Ministers, four at the Treasury and two at the Department of Trade and Industry, attempting to win right of access to employment tribunals for registration officers. Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 provides that that can be done by order. The registration service is about to undergo a major reorganisation and registration officers are likely to become local authority employees. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have the measure in place before that happens? Has he any news that I can give to registration officers at their annual conference in Wales on 14 May?

Nigel Griffiths: The Government are studying more than 400 responses to the consultation document, considering how best to proceed, and setting deadlines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear last month that all new employment legislation must be implemented by 6 April or 1 October. We will work with the Office for National Statistics so that those deadlines can be adhered to.

Dave Watts: Does the Minister agree that although tremendous progress has been made in improving employment rights for British workers, it is still a national scandal that many millions of them will take this bank holiday Monday off without pay? Does he believe that employment rights need to be improved to ensure that all British workers can enjoy the same—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very wide of the question.

Inward Investment

Richard Page: What the total sums of manufacturing inward investment were in each year since 1999.

Patricia Hewitt: The total stock of manufacturing inward investment in the three years of 1999 to 2002 was £63.3 billion, £69.7 billion and £92 billion.

Richard Page: I thank the Secretary of State for that. Is she not concerned that the net figures show that we are losing out and that foreign investment into this country is not going ahead? Is she not also concerned that, at the same time, companies such as Dyson, Royal Doulton, Black and Decker and even Corus are downsizing, closing down or escaping abroad? Is she not worried that all that contributes to the fact that more than 500,000 people have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry in this country? What representations is she making to the Chancellor to improve the lot of manufacturing in the United Kingdom?

Patricia Hewitt: Every job loss and every decision by a company to reduce its employment or to relocate outside the UK is of course a matter for great regret. However, the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that the latest UN report on world investment confirms that the UK is the No. 1 destination for foreign direct investment in Europe. That investment is particularly important in manufacturing, and I am delighted to say that at the end of 2002 foreign direct investment in the UK was significantly higher than a year before.
	One factor in location and investment decisions is the fact that the UK is outside the single currency. The hon. Gentleman may not welcome my saying this, but the impact of that on investment, jobs and trade is one of the issues that we will take into account in making our decision on membership of the euro.

Lawrie Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking and congratulating the Canadian food manufacturer, McCain, which has invested heavily to make Scarborough its European base and gone on to great success? It has also been involved in innovation and development, proving not only that it richly deserves its recent Queen's award for industry but that it is a flagship company, which is telling other companies in north America just how important it is to invest in places in Britain such as Scarborough and Whitby.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am delighted to take this opportunity to congratulate the company and all those who are helping to make Scarborough an excellent location for inward investment. That underlines the fact that under the Chancellor's stewardship the UK remains one of the best places in the world in which to set up and grow a business. It is also one of the most attractive countries in the world, second only to the United States, for foreign direct investment.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State accept that her final comment to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) rather spoiled what had hitherto been a reasonable answer? Is she not aware that the high level of bureaucracy and over-regulation and the high social costs that are imposed on manufacturing, particularly through the European Union, are having a direct impact on that industry, and that many jobs are moving away from Europe and the UK for that reason? Is not the right hon. Lady somewhat concerned that our manufacturing base, for which investment is clearly very important, is shrinking because of over-regulation, high taxation and heavy on-costs, many of which are imposed because of the EU?

Patricia Hewitt: I am extremely concerned to ensure that this country has a strong, successful future in high-technology, high value-added manufacturing. That is why one of the first things that I did as Secretary of State was to bring together industrial leaders and trade unionists to help us to put in place the first manufacturing strategy for the UK for 30 years. As a direct result, we have established throughout all the English regions a highly successful manufacturing advisory service, which is already helping small and medium-sized manufacturers to improve their productivity and profitability. Although manufacturing jobs continue to be lost, not only in this country but in every other industrialised country, we are also growing new manufacturing industries, particularly in biosciences, which will help to create good jobs.
	I also draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that every international benchmarking survey shows that our business environment is one of the best in the world, and we will continue to improve the regulatory environment to keep it that way.

Tim Yeo: What effect does the Secretary of State think that higher national insurance contributions, the climate change levy, the pensions tax and the provisions of the Employment Act 2002, which came into effect last month, will have on inward investment? Will she confirm that six years to the day since Labour was elected, the Government have produced the worst trade deficit since records began in 1697, the second worst fall in business investment since records began in 1966, a halving of the productivity growth rate achieved under the Conservative Government, the worst strike record for over a decade, and the destruction of more than 2,000 manufacturing jobs every day since this Prime Minister moved into 10 Downing street?

Patricia Hewitt: I know that the increase in national insurance contributions will help to secure the huge improvements in the national health service that everybody in our country, including employers, wants. I know that the climate change levy and the climate change agreements are already delivering measurable improvements in energy efficiency throughout manufacturing, thereby helping to reduce costs. I know also that the new regulations on family-friendly working that we introduced last month will give employers the benefit of access to a more flexible and highly skilled work force.
	I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman chooses to talk down the British economy and British manufacturing as he has done today. As he well knows, thanks to the decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor six years ago, ours is one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world; and our manufacturing companies, despite the very tough global conditions they face, have succeeded in keeping up and, indeed, increasing the exports they send to the rest of the world. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate them on that.

Regulatory Impact Assessments

Philip Hammond: What procedures she has in place to audit regulatory impact assessments after implementation of (a) legislation and (b) regulations.

Nigel Griffiths: The accuracy of RIAs is currently being considered by the National Audit Office, with the Government's full support. If the hon. Gentleman has an approach that would further improve the assessment without increasing the bureaucracy, the House would be delighted to hear it.

Philip Hammond: Given that the Government have imposed £20 billion worth of additional regulatory costs on business since they entered office, I hope that the Minister agrees that it is essential that the costs to business of any additional regulations or legislation be accurately assessed. The fact is that business confidence in the current system of RIAs is, rightly or wrongly, low. Does he agree that to increase business confidence in the current system and to improve the quality of policy making, there should be a system of comprehensive post-implementation audit of RIAs, to determine how accurate they are?

Nigel Griffiths: The facts do not bear out the hon. Gentleman's statement. He should tell that to the 373,000 businesses that started up last year or the 1.7 million businesses that have started up in the past six years, with the best survival rates for a decade. In referring to the £20 billion figure, he contradicts his own Front Benchers, because that figure includes the cost of the minimum wage, which they now support, and the cost of paid holidays and paid pensions, which people should not have had to wait until the 21st century to get. The facts are plain: we have a robust method of assessing RIAs. What he suggests is a bureaucratic and burdensome further appraisal of RIAs, which we reject.

Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend will know that the Public Accounts Committee has considered this question. Does he accept that any RIA should take into account the positive impact on profit of measures such as the working families tax credit, which reduces the real cost of wages to business, along with form filling, and legislation that gives £10,000 tax-free profit to partnerships that become incorporated? Does he accept that we should examine the impact of legislation on profit and growth in the round, not simply focus on a bit of red tape?

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right. It is a vote of confidence in the handling of the economy that so many small and medium-sized enterprises—1.7 million—have started up in this country in the past six years, and so many large companies have expanded, as Honda did when it opened a second plant in Swindon in 2000–01. It is recognised across the economy that the handling of our economic affairs by the Government, the Department of Trade and Industry, and the current Secretary of State in particular, is second to none.

John Bercow: Given that the burden of regulation, whatever the intrinsic merits of some of that regulation, tends to be disproportionately large upon small and medium-sized enterprises, will the Minister undertake, as I previously urged the Secretary of State to undertake, a review of the merits of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 in the United States, for the simple and compelling reason that that country has a vastly superior record to any other in the generation of new private sector employment?

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has looked closely at the United States in the respect that he requests. No one in the House would disagree with him when he asks that regulations and their impact be considered proportionately. I, as the Minister with responsibility for small businesses, accept that while larger companies have lawyers and accountants who can examine regulations in detail, smaller companies cannot afford them. I would rather the larger companies employed people who invented and developed products, not lawyers.

Renewable Energy

Gareth Thomas: What further action she is taking to communicate to Ofgem the policy of her Department on renewable energy; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: My ministerial colleagues and I, and my officials, have regular meetings with Ofgem to discuss a range of issues.
	Ofgem has committed itself to producing regulatory impact assessments, including environmental impact assessments for all significant new policies, and following the White Paper on energy policy, we are revising the statutory guidance that we give Ofgem on both social and environmental issues.

Gareth Thomas: I welcome that answer. Given that the early days of the new electricity trading arrangements, which were introduced by Ofgem, were characterised by serious problems, especially for smaller electricity developers such as those in the renewables and combined heat and power industry, will my right hon. Friend make it a priority for the new chair and chief executive of Ofgem that they seek to understand the needs of the renewables industry, and that they make accelerating the modernisation of the grid and sorting out some of the problems facing the CHP industry key priorities?

Patricia Hewitt: Yes, I have already made precisely those points to Ofgem, and they will be reinforced in the new guidance to which I have referred. In addition to the work of the regulator, the renewables obligation, which by 2010 will be worth about £1 billion a year to the industry, and the new carbon emissions trading scheme, which we will bring into effect in about 2006, will both help to accelerate the development of the renewables industry that we need to deliver sustainable energy to domestic and business consumers in Britain.

Richard Ottaway: One of the bolder claims set out in the energy White Paper was the stated ambition to achieve 20 per cent. of Britain's electricity sources from renewable energy by the year 2020, though it was not clear whether that was a commitment, a target or an aspiration. However, in recent weeks the Minister for Energy and Construction has indicated that if the Government do not look as though they are on target to achieve this, whatever it is, the situation will have to be reviewed. On a scale of nought to 10, how confident is the right hon. Lady that she can achieve this aspiration?

Patricia Hewitt: I made it clear when I published the White Paper, and in a statement to the House, that I believe that our intentions to achieve both our climate change objectives and our energy efficiency objectives are achievable, by a massive increase in energy efficiency throughout the economy and by a substantial increase in renewable energy. There is no doubt that it will be tough. That is why we are putting in place not only the renewables obligation but the new carbon emissions trading system, which will be part of the Europe-wide trading system and hugely important in securing these goals. I believe that we can do it. I do not propose to start giving odds on that, and of course we shall keep the situation under review to ascertain whether the policies that we are putting in place are working or whether they need strengthening or changing.

Kevin Hughes: I agree that it is important for Ofgem to play a role and for us to continue to develop our renewable energy sources. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important also to deliver the new generation of clean coal technology, which can play a significant role in helping us to meet our Kyoto targets, and also provide many new jobs in constituencies such as Doncaster, North?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why we are supporting the cleaner coal technology programme, which is worth £25 million over three years. That will help us both to reduce carbon emissions and to ensure that there is a future for the excellent British coal industry.

Crispin Blunt: Just precisely how does one communicate an aspiration as policy? Is not the truth that the right hon. Lady's renewables aspiration is unachievable? She has just terminated the future for nuclear electricity and she expects the end of coal, leaving just natural gas, thus ushering in a new dash for gas as the energy Minister rushes from Norway to Russia, Algeria, Iran and Angola to try to secure our future energy supply. No wonder he is not here—he must be dealing with the emergency that now exists over our future single source of energy, thanks to her having an aspiration instead of a policy.

Patricia Hewitt: I am not sure quite what the hon. Gentleman's question is. It is a great pity that he mocks the very real policy challenge facing our country as we shift from being an exporter of energy to an importer of energy which means, as we said in the White Paper, that energy policy will become an increasingly important part of our foreign policy. We must ensure both that we have the right infrastructure and the regulatory climate to get the necessary security of supply for gas from different parts of the world such as we have enjoyed for oil. However, as I have just said in response to an earlier question, by stepping up substantially our efforts on energy efficiency and securing a much larger share of our electricity from renewables, we will indeed be able to achieve both security of supply and our climate change targets.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the environmental impact assessments to which she has referred will take into account whether or not wind farms are to be sited in areas of outstanding natural beauty? Will she also look at the concern of a number of people that the location of wind farms close to rivers and the seaside can harm the ecosystem? In particular, can she get her officials to look at the proposed wind farm in County Londonderry, which has united elected representatives there and in County Donegal who are concerned about the impact on the area's fragile and precious ecosystem and salmon stocks?

Patricia Hewitt: I am not aware of the particular application in County Londonderry, but of course I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction looks at that. However, the issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) referred are already taken into account when considering an application for wind farms or, indeed, other developments. I would just tell him, as I have told environmental organisations, that people cannot on the one hand say that they want more renewable energy and, on the other, campaign against every specific proposal for an increase in renewable energy in different parts of the country.

Trade Balance (EU)

Teddy Taylor: What the balance of trade with the European Union was in (a) the latest 12 months for which figures are available and (b) the equivalent period 10 years previously.

Patricia Hewitt: In 1992, the United Kingdom's trade in goods and services with the European Union was worth £163 billion. The deficit then of £5.4 billion was worth just over 3 per cent. of the UK's total trade. In 2002, our trade with the European Union was worth nearly £300 billion. The deficit of just under £14 billion was worth 4.7 per cent. of the UK's total trade.

Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister not genuinely worried about her balance of trade figures? The adverse balance of 2002 was the worst ever, particularly as it was recorded at a time when we had a positive balance with many parts of the world. As our trade with Europe used to be positive in certain years before we joined the EEC, could the right hon. Lady try to conduct an inquiry to find out what exactly has gone wrong? In particular—and I mean this very sincerely—could she try and find out whether the reason why we cannot sell as many goods to Europe is the misery and unemployment associated with membership of the single currency?

Patricia Hewitt: I know that the hon. Gentleman gets very excited about matters European, but I point out to him that the increase in the trade deficit over the past year or so is a result of the fact that we in Britain have enjoyed and are enjoying relatively good GDP growth. We are continuing to grow, whereas demand in the major continental economies has been disappointing.
	I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that more than half our trade is with the European Union. The proportion has steadily increased over the years since we joined the Common Market, and is now about three times as much as the trade that we enjoy with the United States.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for business in regions such as the north-east, which rely on EU countries for 78 per cent. of their exports, the nightmarish policies advocated by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) would be disastrous?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. If we were to pull out of the European Union and join the North American Free Trade Agreement, as some of the wilder Eurosceptics propose, it would be disastrous for jobs, investment and trade, and it would hit hard not only my hon. Friend's constituents but all our constituents.

Post Office Card Account

Tom Brake: What assessment her Department has made of the impact on the profitability of the Post Office of the current level of take-up of the Post Office card account.

Stephen Timms: The Department has made no such an assessment. The Post Office card account is one element of the Post Office's strategy to restore the network of post offices to profitability. The strategy requires the Post Office to develop new, higher value activities such as banking and other financial services, which is made possible by the Government's investment in technology in every post office in the country.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response and encourage him to undertake such research. Does he agree that a seven-stage application process for a Post Office card account acts as a deterrent, as does the lack of information about the account? That will lead to lower take-up, which will affect the profitability of the Post Office and post offices, and could lead to further closures, such as the threatened closure of Westmead road post office in my constituency.

Stephen Timms: Many people are applying for Post Office card accounts. I do not agree about the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman believes exist. As we take advantage of the implementation of universal banking, which went live on 1 April, as planned—I recall Opposition Front Benchers expressing some scepticism about that, but it was delivered on time—people will be able to continue to collect their benefits in cash at the post office, as we always promised, through a bank account or through the Post Office card account.
	The key for the Post Office is that universal banking services will allow post offices to offer services to a new generation of customers. Sub-postmasters in the hon. Gentleman's constituency should consider the new opportunities that universal banking offers them. For example, since last week, every Barclays bank current account holder can obtain cash at any post office in the country, using their existing bank card, so 10 million Barclays current account holders have a new and compelling reason to go into their local post office. The post office will, of course, receive a payment for every such transaction, and once customers are in the post office, they will buy other things there. That is the way forward for post offices in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Other banks will have a similar arrangement, and what the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has got the message.

David Drew: I accept what my hon. Friend says as he waxes lyrical. We must rebuild the network, but the biggest single problem is the relationship between the Department for Work and Pensions and sub-post offices. It is difficult to pretend that it is not off-putting if people have to go through the Department for Work and Pensions to get to the sub-post office. There is another bizarre twist. We know that, under the network reinvention programme, there must be some closures, but in my area we seem to be saving rural post offices, whereas those in the more urban areas are being sacrificed. That is unacceptable. People are worried about whether they will have access to the Post Office card account. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Stephen Timms: I gather that, so far, nearly 100,000 people have requested a Post Office card account. There is a difference between rural and urban areas. Quite a few urban areas have 15 or more post offices within a one-mile radius, and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, there is no longer the business to sustain such a dense network. However, 3.5 million people in the UK do not have a bank account, many of whom would be better off with one, and the process of changing to benefit payment through automated credit transfer gives each of those people the chance to consider whether they would like to open a bank account. That is the purpose of the arrangements that we have put in place, and for that reason there is merit in them.

Boris Johnson: May I relay to the Minister the very real anger of people in Watlington in south Oxfordshire who, like many others, face the closure of their post office? A problem that has been raised with me by the manager there is that housebound pensioners do not find it easy to depute another person to pick up their pension or any other benefit for them, which used to be possible with the old pension book system. What can the Minister do to address that problem and bring people back to the post offices to do their shopping so that post offices can continue to play a part in the life of the village?

Stephen Timms: We have ensured that those who are housebound can receive a second card with a separate PIN that will be available for use by a nominee. We would be concerned if large numbers of different people were obtaining the money, as that would be a rather insecure arrangement. One of the benefits of the changes that we have made is that the new arrangements will be much more secure than the old ones were.

Harry Barnes: Is the Minister aware of the line that the Post Office takes on these matters? I have been in touch with the Post Office in an attempt to save Hilltop post office in Dronfield and, while it says that it will note and carefully consider the points that I have made, given the contents of its letter I am not hopeful. It says that
	"the introduction of Direct Payment options . . . undoubtedly, means fewer customers using our network of Post Office branches".
	That is one of the arguments used for closures. I can send the Post Office the information that the Minister has just given about the wonders of Barclays bank accounts, which might help us save post offices in future, but would it not be of assistance if the Post Office card could be obtained in a sensible and reasonable way by simply ticking a box in the same way that one can obtain a bank account?

Stephen Timms: We have put in place arrangements with Postwatch and provided substantial funding so that it can manage the consultation process. I encourage my hon. Friend and others who might be concerned about particular post office closures to raise their concerns with Postwatch.
	There are many advantages in having a bank account that are not available through a Post Office card account, which is why we want people to take the opportunity of this change to consider whether they would be better off with a bank account, which would give them access to discounts on utility bills and so on. Many people, as we are seeing, are deciding that they want a Post Office card account, and no impediment will be placed in their way, but this is an opportunity for others to consider whether a bank account would help them.

Tim Yeo: Is not the truth of the matter that the Government do not want people to continue drawing pensions and other social security benefits in cash at post offices? How else can the Minister explain the constant denigration of the Post Office card account and the obstacles that are put in the way of people who wish to open one? He has been at it again today from the Dispatch Box. He is promoting Barclays bank and commercial bank accounts and saying that the Post Office card account is the second-rate option. Does he understand that that policy will make life difficult for thousands of elderly and vulnerable people and that it will threaten the survival of post offices throughout the country whose existence is often a lifeline for the communities that they serve?

Stephen Timms: I am disappointed; I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate the Post Office on the successful implementation of universal banking on time, contrary to the fears that he expressed during Question Time a few weeks ago. I do not agree with his allegations. The Post Office card account is a very important element in the strategy, but it is only one element. In the past, the problem has been that the Post Office has locked into a declining market in which people simply want to cash giros. When people retire, more and more of them now want to carry on using the bank account that they have used throughout their lives. The £500 million investment that we have made, benefiting every post office in the country, has opened up that market to the Post Office and held out the prospect of a much more attractive commercial future for the post office network. I agree about the importance of post offices in our communities, which is why we have made such a substantial investment in their future.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Mark Prisk: What efforts her Department is making to improve productivity growth rates among small and medium-sized enterprises.

Nigel Griffiths: Improving productivity is central to the Government's economic strategy. We have overtaken Japan and narrowed the gap with Germany to 4 per cent., our research and development tax credits are helping an estimated 3,000 firms to keep ahead of our competition and, last year, more than 1,000 of our brightest businesses were offered SMARTs—small firms merit awards for research and technology—of £47 million to help develop their products in the marketplace.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for those proud statements, but, despite all that, the truth is that under this Government productivity growth has halved. That has happened not least because of the fact that the Government impose 15 regulations every working day. Two years ago, as I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the Government passed the Regulatory Reform Act. We were promised that there would be 50 new regulatory reform orders immediately. Yet, two years later, only 12 orders have been enacted. What happened to the other 38? Will the Minister explain why his Department has managed to pass just one regulatory reform order in 24 months?

Nigel Griffiths: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that was one more order than the Conservative Government ever got to grips with in their time. Indeed, who was it who said that 28 licences, certificates and regulations were needed just to start a business? John Major made that comment at the 1992 Tory party conference. It now takes a day to set up a business, it costs less than £85 and there is no longer a need for 28 licences, so we will not take lectures about bureaucracy from the Conservatives.
	We take productivity very seriously, which is why we have introduced tax credits to support innovative SMEs with cash support worth up to 24 per cent. of their research and development and why SMEs' productivity as a proportion of large firms' productivity is increasing—it is up 1 per cent. in the most recent recorded figures to 93 per cent., and some SMEs are more efficient than large firms. We have taken the measures to increase productivity, and I noticed that the hon. Gentleman admitted in his supplementary question that productivity was improving.

Brian White: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform has dealt with a large number of reforms this year? Is it not regrettable that Conservative Members very rarely turn up at that Committee?

Nigel Griffiths: I am not here to get involved in party politics, but I am sure that the House and a wider audience will have noticed the excellent point made by my hon. Friend.

Henry Bellingham: Surely, if productivity was really improving that much, major plants would not be leaving the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) mentioned a number of plants that were moving out of the UK, but he did not mention Vauxhall, Dr. Martens, Wilkinson Sword and Coats Viyella. That is straightforward outward investment. Surely, we need improvements in productivity. How many more UK plants need to leave for the far east before the Government recognise that there is a crisis in manufacturing? Or will they rely on the SARS epidemic to save British industry?

Nigel Griffiths: I know a little bit about the far east because I have just returned from a trade mission there. One of the facts that the Opposition choose to ignore is that, for instance, more than 70 per cent. of Taiwan's inward investment in Europe comes to Britain. In Japan, 43 per cent. of inward investment to Europe comes to Britain. I mentioned Honda in answering another question. What about Ford and those other big manufacturers that choose to invest in Britain? They do so because we have made Britain the preferred choice for the world for inward investment to Europe.

British Manufacturers

Tony Baldry: If she will make a statement on measures in the Budget designed to support British manufacturers.

Patricia Hewitt: The Budget includes a number of measures that will support British manufacturers: in particular, the research and development tax credit, from which manufacturers already benefit; deregulatory reforms to ease the regulatory burden on small businesses; and further support to improve levels of skills throughout the UK work force.

Tony Baldry: Much of manufacturing business needs to use steel somewhere in its processes. There is little in the Budget for such businesses, who are deeply concerned about what has been happening at Corus and about the fact that the Secretary of State seems to have been totally complacent in response to those events. What are the Government's proposals for the future of the UK steel industry?

Patricia Hewitt: We are all extremely concerned about the job losses at Corus, which have been going on for some years, and the prospect of further losses in some parts of the company. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I have been talking to the company, to the trade unions and to hon. Members who represent steel constituencies to ensure that we support that company and its outstanding work force in securing a successful future for the steel industry. That is of huge importance not only to the workers at Corus, for whom this is a time of enormous anxiety, but to the whole of our manufacturing industry. I welcome the fact that the new leadership at Corus is putting in place a strategy that is designed to return the company to profitability and to ensure that it remains at the heart of a high-volume, strategic and successful steel industry in the United Kingdom.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister was asked—

Public Health

Paul Burstow: How many discussions she has had in the past year with the Secretary of State for Health regarding women's public health issues.

Tom Brake: How many discussions she has had in the past year with the Secretary of State for Health regarding women's public health issues.

Patricia Hewitt: My officials have been working closely with the Department of Health and other Departments to draw together targets to tackle gender equality, including in public health. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for public health has ensured that women's needs are taken into account throughout our public health programmes, including those on breast cancer, cervical cancer and osteoporosis, and in our broader work on mental health, health inequalities and domestic violence.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does she accept the comments that were recently made by Professor Adler of the Royal Free University medical college, who said that levels of sexual disease in England have reached crisis point, and that the Government's current levels of funding for sexual health will not even cover the costs of a chlamydial screening programme, let alone other sexually transmitted diseases? In her forthcoming discussions, will she and her officials raise the need to consider further funding for the treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases?

Patricia Hewitt: The increase in sexually transmitted diseases, particularly among young women, is a matter of enormous concern, and I will of course discuss it further with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Tom Brake: The Minister will be aware that in 2001 heart disease killed 54,000 women—it was the single biggest killer. What work is she doing with the Department of Health on that subject; and does she have a view on whether the much-publicised "eat chocolate to get fit" campaign will help to reduce heart disease among women?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the prevalence of heart disease and the number of deaths that it causes among women. As we know, heart disease is all too often seen as a male, not a female, disease, and in some tragic cases it is simply not diagnosed in women. The need to ensure that the medical profession pays attention to heart disease among women is an important part of the programme introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to improve services and to cut the rate of preventable death from heart disease.

John McDonnell: The Minister will probably be aware that yesterday there was an immensely successful conference in Parliament on endometriosis, which was attended by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears). It was organised by the all-party group on endometriosis, the National Endometriosis Society and the SHE Trust, and proposed a programme of work to raise the profile of that condition, which affects 2 million women in this country. Would she be willing to meet a delegation from the all-party group to discuss that programme?

Patricia Hewitt: I am aware of the conference and I congratulate everyone who was involved in organising it. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is already considering how it can improve advice to GPs on an extremely painful and common condition. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health would be delighted to receive a deputation on such an important issue.

Gareth Thomas: Has my right hon. Friend considered the specific problem of second-hand smoke in her discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on women's public health issues? It carries additional risks for women of increased lung cancer and heart disease. What proposals is she examining to tackle that problem? Has she considered the possibility of a ban on smoking in restaurants and cafés?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, he has a Bill on the subject. The increase in smoking among young women is especially worrying not only for their health but for that of the children they will have. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering my hon. Friend's proposal for a ban on smoking in all public places. Those of us who are not smokers welcome the opportunity to enjoy smoke-free environments.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister recognises the importance of sex education in schools in helping to deter immature and promiscuous sexual behaviour and reducing unwanted teenage pregnancies. What discussions has she held on the subject with her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills?

Patricia Hewitt: I have discussed the matter with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills for some years. It is clear from experience not only here but in other countries, including the Netherlands, that the best way to ensure that young people do not engage in risky and premature sexual behaviour is to enable them to have an open discussion about not only sexual activity but the emotions and relationships associated with it and the desirability of a strong and loving relationship within which sex can take place.

Equal Pay

Helen Clark: If she will make a statement about the Government's targets for equal pay.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government are working to reduce the gender pay gap through a variety of measures, including equal pay reviews throughout the civil service by the end of April, working with the Equal Opportunities Commission to promote equal pay reviews by other employers, introducing an equal pay questionnaire as part of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and providing trade unions with additional funding for training representatives in equal pay issues.

Helen Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Doubtless she is aware that, despite the Equal Pay Act, which a previous Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, effected in 1976, women who work full time earn only 81p for every pound that men earn and women who work part time earn only 59p for every pound that men earn. More worryingly, within three years of graduation, women earn on average 15 per cent. less than their male counterparts.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Fawcett Society that unless the Government set firm targets, at the current snail's rate of progress, it will take 75 years before equal pay for women is truly achieved?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right about the shocking extent of the continuing pay gap. However, in order to reduce it, we need to take action, especially on the problem of low pay from which so many women suffer. The introduction of the national minimum wage on top of Barbara Castle's Equal Pay Act has already meant significant pay rises for nearly 1 million women. I am delighted that, a few weeks ago, I was able to announce further increases in the national minimum wage for this year and next year, following the Low Pay Commission's recommendations.
	At the top of the labour market, far too few women have access to the best paid jobs. Tribunal cases in the City have shown that even those women who get to the top do not receive equal pay. The cases that are being brought for equal pay for work of equal value—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to give the shadow Minister time to come in.

Caroline Spelman: The Minister for Women has just commended the civil service's progress towards achieving equal pay targets. In the light of that, how does she explain that only 19 of the 93 Government Departments or agencies conducted an equal pay review by the deadline last Wednesday, despite being given a year to do it?

Patricia Hewitt: All Government Departments are undertaking equal pay reviews. Those that have not completed them will shortly do so and put in place action plans to ensure that the equal pay gaps revealed by the reviews are closed. With the involvement of ACAS, we have put in place the new grading structure and phased pay rises that will ensure that the women as well as the men in the Department receive fair pay.

Vincent Cable: Following that answer and the Government's initiative in trying to deal with the unacceptable gender pay gap through independent audits, can the Minister say how many corporations have agreed to conduct or have carried out independent, rigorous assessments of the type that she is seeking? How many of the rather limited number of public sector reviews passed the test of being independent and rigorous?

Patricia Hewitt: The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Government are monitoring the take-up of equal pay reviews in the private sector. When we have that information, we will, of course, publish it. In the civil service, we have sought independent assistance in ensuring that reviews are carried out properly. They have revealed serious problems of unequal pay and we are putting in place the action needed to put that right.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

John Reid: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 5 May—The House will not be sitting
	Tuesday 6 May—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 7 May—Second Reading of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.
	Thursday 8 May—Second Reading of the Fire Services Bill.
	Friday 9 May—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 12 May—Opposition day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 13 May—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 14 May—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Thursday 15 May—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. [First Part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a debate on developing a national skills strategy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 16 May—Private Members' Bills.

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for letting us have the business. The Second Reading of the foundation hospitals Bill will take place on 7 May. Will he reconsider whether one day is enough to allow his colleagues to air their views on that Bill? He said last night, in the pleasant little exchange that we had on a parliamentary matter, how grateful he was for the unusual support that he was getting from his parliamentary colleagues. Given that new confidence, perhaps he will consider having a two-day debate on the Second Reading of the foundation hospitals Bill, so that he can wallow further in the confidence of his parliamentary colleagues and demonstrate the extent of support that there is in the Labour party for foundation hospitals. That would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	May we have a debate very early on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy? I am told that the current Greek presidency of the European Union has indicated that it wants a final agreement as early as June on the new shape of the CAP. If that is the case, I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that it is extremely important that hon. Members, particularly those with agricultural and rural interests, have an opportunity to have their say about the CAP before the Government commit us to a position on CAP reform. I hope that he will agree that that is urgent and that he will provide Government time to debate it.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor referred yesterday to an astonishing error in the explanatory notes to the Finance Bill, which wrongly stated the basic rate of tax. In fairness to the Treasury—the Chancellor beetled out of the Chamber before he could hear what the shadow Chancellor said—a correction has been issued, but my right hon. and learned Friend asked for an undertaking that the Chancellor would come to the House before next Tuesday's debate on the Finance Bill to correct any further errors in the explanatory notes. We cannot be expected to start a major debate on the Finance Bill ill and erroneously informed by the Treasury about the basic elements of the legislation. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that the Chancellor has done his homework, looked through the explanatory notes and satisfied himself that there are no further errors and, if there are, that he will come to the House to correct them. An apology—rare though it would be from the Chancellor—would not be out of place.
	Has the Leader of the House opened his parliamentary mail this morning? I am sure that, like me, he opens his own post every morning and peruses the contents. If he has, he will have found a rather odd letter from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The letter was entitled, "Licensing Bill Surgery". I am sure that we would all like to see some—no, a lot of—surgery on the Licensing Bill, but that is not what was meant.
	The letter pointed out that the Licensing Bill is currently in Committee, but went on to say:
	"Certain aspects of the Bill have been contentious"—
	that is a good start; the Secretary of State has at least noticed that—
	"and some are still not fully understood."
	It is not clear whether she meant by herself or by others. She continued:
	"I believe that it is extremely important we are able to answer your fears and concerns"—
	presumably including those of the Leader of the House—
	"and to clarify any points of misunderstanding. I therefore propose to hold a surgery session at which you can put your points or concerns to my officials, the experts on the Bill."
	I thought that that was what Standing Committees were for; to deal with contentious aspects of a Bill, to enable Members to understand it and to clear up any difficulties. The Secretary of State obviously does not believe that. Standing Committees are already being truncated and cut off—not just at the knees, but at other vital parts—and now we see a new departure. The Secretary of State is telling us to forget Committees, because they are a bore, in favour of surgeries for MPs, so that civil servants can do the heavy lifting, explain the nonsenses in a Bill and let Ministers off the hook. Will the Leader of the House explain what the hell is going on? Is he going to attend the surgery and have the Bill explained to him?
	On 28 April, the Paymaster General rashly said, in the context of the child and working tax credits, that her
	"aim is that . . . families will get their money by Friday of this week."—[Official Report, 28 April 2003; Vol. 404, c. 54.]
	That is tomorrow, so will the Paymaster General make a statement next Tuesday to inform us whether the families have had all their money? That would be a welcome development.
	Yesterday the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—I see him in his place, as ever—asked the Prime Minister a question. The hon. Gentleman first reminded the Prime Minister of a written parliamentary reply of 19 December 2001, in which he had said:
	"Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of the House of Commons and that if there were a development which required a change of policy, he"—
	the Prime Minister—
	"would at such a moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative, make a statement in the House about it."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 367W.]
	This is an important matter. Yesterday and today, we have had sensational revelations about the apparent tapping of the telephones of Mo Mowlam—a former right hon. Member of this House—a member of the Prime Minister's staff and another Member of Parliament. If the revelations are true, surely the Prime Minister must keep faith with the undertaking of his predecessor, which he has confirmed, to tell the House what is going on.
	All Members have an interest in this matter, Mr. Speaker, as must you. If Members of Parliament are to have their telephones tapped, we must know why and how. Most important of all—this is the key question—was it authorised by the Prime Minister? Either he knows what is going on or he does not. This matter is of the highest constitutional importance. I hope that the Leader of the House can either give us reassurances about this matter or instruct the Prime Minister to come to the House early next week to clarify the matter so that we know the truth about it.

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. First, I should rectify the record by announcing the business for Westminster Hall, which I omitted to do first time round. I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in that.
	On Thursday 15 May, there will be a debate on the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the case for the Human Rights Commission. On Thursday 22 May, there will be a cross-cutting question session on tackling drugs, followed by a debate on the report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on urban charging schemes. I am sure that the whole House will take a deep interest in all that business.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked for further and greater debate on foundation hospitals. Within the constraints of parliamentary time, we are always prepared to give as much time as possible to subjects of great importance to the nation and to the future of our public services. That is certainly the case with foundation hospitals. The purpose of foundation hospitals is to give greater managerial freedom at a local level. All my colleagues and I support that purpose. The idea is to move from a top-down management system to one based on a few key rules within which organisations have much greater flexibility over managing their resources and designing services. This innovation is part of our move to devolve responsibility to the front line and improve accountability to patients and the public.

Eric Forth: Reading.

John Reid: I did in fact read that, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Every word I said was taken from various speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which shows our unanimity on all these issues. We will be extremely happy not only to discuss foundation hospitals, but to do so in the context of a comparison of health records. As the House will know, there are now nearly 50,000 more nurses than when we came to power, over 10,000 more doctors, 300,000 more operations and 750,000 additional elective admissions. When we compare that with what is offered as the alternative, we are more than happy to give time—

Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot take a point of order at this stage.

John Reid: I assumed that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee would have known that.

Nicholas Winterton: Answer the question.

John Reid: I am precisely answering the question about whether we would be prepared to give more time to debate health and foundation hospitals, particularly the alternative policies to those that we are pursuing; policies of making patients pay more for health care when they need it and slashing by 20 per cent. the amount of money put into health care.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the common agricultural policy and the position of the Greek presidency. At this stage, I am not entirely familiar with that. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will always look for opportunities to debate our support for agriculture within this country. We are investing about £500 million over three years, targeted to help farmers to add value to their products by reconnecting with customers.
	On the Finance Bill, I am certain that the Chancellor will have ensured that every dot and comma of his document is accurate. If not, he will, with graciousness, accept responsibility for any mistakes and correct them, as he has done in the past.
	I thought that there was a rather ungracious dismissal not only of my colleague, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but of the whole of Britain's culture and heritage in the rather swiping aside made by the shadow Leader of the House. I understood that he and his party were deeply interested in our culture and heritage and would thus have welcomed the efforts that my colleague, the Secretary of State, is making to offer even more openness and access not only to politicians but to civil servants, and to improve access to our culture and our historical heritage, as witnessed by the huge increase in the number of people in this country who are visiting museums since we abolished entry charges to so many of them.
	The shadow Leader mentioned tax credits. This issue is vital; the credits will benefit millions of people. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the task is massive. My understanding is that, at present, claims are being processed in respect of about 3 million of the 4 million received and that about 700 extra staff have been taken on. If anyone who was entitled to receive money last week has not yet received it, I deeply regret that, but I can assure them that a huge amount is being made available. I am sure that the Chancellor and his colleagues will be constantly available to answer questions as things develop. They take seriously the criticisms that have been made of their efforts so far.
	The shadow Leader also raised the important issue of telephone tapping. The Prime Minister commented on that yesterday. For reasons that the House will, I hope, appreciate, I do not intend to add further to the comments made by my right hon. Friend, especially as I understand that arrests have been made in connection with the newspaper reports.

Andrew MacKinlay: There have been no charges.

John Reid: I am not sure what has happened during the past few hours, since I came to the House, but I understand that arrests were made. In any case, even in normal circumstances, I should be reticent to make further comments at this stage. I hope that the shadow Leader of the House will accept that position.

Vincent Cable: I am deputising for my colleague, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is in his constituency promoting local democracy.
	First, I welcome the fact that we shall have an early opportunity to debate foundation hospitals. In order to make clear the terms of that debate, can the Leader of the House explain in a little more detail what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant in his comments to the Treasury Select Committee yesterday? The Chancellor seemed to imply that any additional borrowing for such hospitals would have to be within national health service financial ceilings, and would thus be at the expense of other parts of the NHS, confirming many people's worst fears about that initiative. Will the Leader of the House confirm that I have correctly understood the matter?
	Secondly, the Leader of the House will be aware of concern in the House, expressed at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday and during Trade and Industry Question Time today, about the future of the steel industry. An Adjournment debate on the future of the industry will be held in Westminster Hall next week, but will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is a major issue that affects several regions—the north-east, south Yorkshire and south Wales—and raises major questions about executive pay and unfairness in that respect? Will he therefore ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, after meeting industry representatives tomorrow, returns on Tuesday with a full statement to the House about the crisis in that industry, the job losses and the potential responses?
	Lastly, may I welcome the fact that last week we had a gracious apology from the Paymaster General about the administrative problems in the tax credit arrangements? I suggest to the Leader of the House, however, that a potentially even bigger administrative problem arises in relation to pensioners, as a result of the enormous changeover problems associated with post office accounts. Hundreds of thousands of pensioners are now trapped in an extremely complicated bureaucratic process; many are being guided towards bank accounts that they do not want, and many have no provision at all for drawing their cash in the months ahead. Since the Deputy Prime Minister has personally assumed responsibility for banging Ministers' heads together and sorting out the administrative mess, will the Leader of the House ask him to come to the House to make a statement before another Minister has to make another gracious apology for the mix-up that has occurred?

John Reid: On pensioners, the Government have paid considerable attention to ensuring that the transition in relation to pensioners' access through post offices to benefits and pensions has been done as efficiently and as caringly as possible. As the hon. Gentleman may know, a range of options are now open to pensioners that were previously not available. A range of advantages are associated with that, including, of course, the fact that it minimises the possibility of attacks on pensioners, compared with the previous arrangement. He is absolutely right that, in such a big project, difficulties have arisen. We should be thankful that the Deputy Prime Minister has devoted so much time and energy to the matter. He continues to do so, and I am sure that if there are any other major issues that must be shared with the House, he will do that.
	On the steel industry, the Government, along with Back-Bench Labour Members—and, I am sure, the whole House—deeply regret the decisions that have been taken. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I understand more than anyone the effects on individuals and the community of redundancies in the steel industry. At one stage, I had in my area some 20,000 steel jobs. I now have only a few hundred, and these are just outside, and not even inside, my constituency. The Government and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will put in enormous efforts, as we always do in such circumstances, to establish a taskforce to make sure that those who have lost their job are in a position to gain jobs through training and the creation of an environment in which new jobs flourish.
	On foundation hospitals, I have already made our position clear, as have all my colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I quoted earlier. He has said that the purpose of foundation hospitals is to provide greater managerial freedom at local level, which he supports. In any project such as the reform and revitalisation of our public sector and public services, legitimate debate exists about the practical balance between the centre and front-line decisions, high-level decisions and decentralised decision-making, and the need to have prudence in fiscal controls at the centre but a degree of flexibility in borrowing to respond to the differentiated needs, choice and diversity required by modern working families who have greater ambitions than ever before. Of course, there is legitimate debate about that, and we have conducted that debate inside and outside our party in a mature and robust fashion because it is a question of people's lives and the quality of their lives.
	The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Government are totally united on this issue. We always benefit from the Liberals' commitment—I think that this was what he said—to sharing and to educating the public on politics, and I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is absent today, does so with more honesty than the Liberals have shown on the subject of top-up fees. They have been pretending, in their party political broadcasts, that it is possible to provide education without paying for it. That is not the case. One must pay before one goes in or pay when one gets off at the end of the journey of education.

Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the US organisers of Monday's Baghdad conference failed to find a place for Dr. Besarani, who was the only woman delegate put forward by the Foreign Office? Will he arrange an urgent debate on how those preparations for the Iraqi interim authority are being conducted, and on how this Government's commitment to women's involvement in that process can be realised in practice?

John Reid: Yes, I am aware of that, and I discussed it this morning with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Minister with responsibility for women's affairs. It is a matter of regret that the lady whom my hon. Friend mentions did not attend that conference, and it would be a matter of regret if women did not play a much fuller part in the future of Iraq than they have so far been allowed to do, as that is a vital component in allowing the Iraqi people to build a modern, democratic society for themselves. I cannot promise that there will be a debate here, but I assure her that this matter is at the forefront of Ministers' attention, and perhaps it is an issue that could be raised in Westminster Hall.

George Young: The Leader of the House may know that the Committee on Standards in Public Life published its ninth report a few weeks ago, making important recommendations to guarantee against misuse of the Government information service, to control the numbers and powers of special advisers, to promote the impartiality of the civil service and to revise the code of conduct for Ministers. Will he find time for a debate on this most important subject?

John Reid: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is an important subject. Although I cannot promise at this stage that there will definitely be a debate on it, I assure him that the Government take the matter most seriously.

Dave Watts: Can I inform my right hon. Friend that turnout in the local elections has increased in St. Helens from 27 per cent. to 45 per cent. due to the introduction of all-out postal voting? Will he find some time in the House to discuss that important issue, to see what lessons are to be learned from those pilot schemes and to assess whether some of those measures should be made permanent?

John Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the measures that he mentioned increase participation in elections, and I am sure that the Electoral Commission and others will produce a report on the matter. I am sure too that there will be endless possibilities to discuss the matter. Perhaps an Adjournment debate would be an appropriate method of putting some of those issues into the public domain, including the various means used in the trial, such as text messaging and postal balloting. Even interactive television could be used, which would be completely novel as far as this country is concerned. Clearly, however, interest and participation in elections is determined not just by the technical means by which people vote but by the profile and campaigning of political parties. We all therefore have a responsibility to ensure increased participation.

Martin Smyth: Following the comments about the right to vote, the Leader of the House will be aware that elections are being held today in Scotland and Wales and that elections should have been held in Northern Ireland. Those were postponed, and legislation went through the House under which they were to be held on 29 May. Today, in Northern Ireland, it has been reported in the media that those elections have been postponed. I have just been told that a junior Minister in the Dail has confirmed that they are postponed. Surely the House, which passed the legislation, should have been informed, rather than hearing it from the media and from a Minister in another Government.

John Reid: If any decision had been taken, the House would have been informed. The reality is that the date has been set—29 May—as the hon. Gentleman knows. There are no current plans to postpone those elections. We want to go into an election in which voters elect people to an Assembly with a real prospect of assuming devolved power. Time is pressing, but we remain focused on trying to bring that about. If and when any decision is made, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that, if there is any change in those arrangements, we will immediately bring such a decision to the House at the first opportunity.

Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1120, which is the last one to be published and is entitled "Solidarity with the Iraqi Independent Trade Union Movement"?
	[That this House recalls that on May Day 1959 the Iraqi Labour Movement mobilised one million people out of the then population of 14 million for a massive march in Baghdad to celebrate International Workers' Day; sends its heartfelt solidarity to the Workers' Democratic Trade Union Movement in the Iraqi Republic on the occasion on 1st May 2003 of the first free labour movement march since the demise of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship; further notes that the Iraqi trade union movement is working for the creation of a unified, federal and democratic Iraq that transcends religious, ethnic and nationalist divisions and also guarantees political and trade union rights, which were denied by the Ba'athist regime and its bogus trade union machine; and supports their call for the transfer of power from the occupying forces to an interim and broadly based coalition government which could remove the remnants of Saddam's dictatorship and prepare a permanent constitution which would provide the basis for free and fair elections under the direct supervision of the United Nations.]
	Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the workers democratic trade union movement on organising a march in Baghdad today, May day, that helps us to remember the massive demonstration of 1 million people out of a population of 14 million that took place in Baghdad in 1959? Can the early-day motion be part of a debate on the future of Iraq, in which we can discuss its democratisation and reconstruction and deal with the point about the 300 people who were drawn together in Baghdad to get democratic procedures moving? No one from a trade union was represented in that group, there was probably one person from the Labour movement, an Assyrian socialist and a few women. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) could obviously also be dealt with, because no women trade unionists attended because no trade unionists at all were present.

John Reid: I am familiar with the early-day motion entitled "Solidarity with the Iraqi Independent Trade Union Movement". Indeed, I have a great deal of sympathy for its contents. My honourable Friend draws a parallel with the participation of women in the new Iraq and their complete absence in the new formations that have been established, a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) will be aware that we are coming out of very difficult circumstances, including a military campaign. We are in the very early stages of allowing the formation of systems and structures whereby the Iraqi people will determine their own future, but I hope that two things will ultimately transpire. The first is an Iraq that is for the Iraqi people themselves, and secondly, I hope that the form of government there will be as democratic and as inclusive as possible and will allow the whole spectrum of the people of Iraq to participate in the decisions about the future of their country. We would all be pleased if that could be achieved.

Andrew Rosindell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1090?
	[That this House applauds the bravery and valour of Coalition forces, deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom; congratulates all servicemen involved on their professionalism in securing the aims of their mission so quickly; remembers those who tragically lost their lives in the service of Queen and country; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to organise a heroes parade through the streets of London, for all returning UK servicemen to mark their homecoming.]
	The motion is about the need for a heroes' homecoming parade for all the brave service men and women who have served our country in the Gulf. As the war concludes, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Government to make a statement on when a homecoming parade will take place through the streets of London so that the British people can rightly salute the bravery and courage of our service men and women as they return from that conflict?

John Reid: I have some sympathy for the contents of that early-day motion, as the hon. Gentleman might expect given my past association with our armed forces. We fully understand the sentiment behind the motion and, once again, we congratulate our forces on the professionalism and courage that they have demonstrated in Iraq. Of course, we remember with pride, gratitude and a great deal of sadness those who have given their lives in the conflict.
	An event for the armed forces personnel returning from duty in the Gulf is certainly a possibility; it is under consideration. It could take one of various forms—a memorial service, some sort of homecoming parade or whatever. However, it is too early for me to say when that might be appropriate or what exact form it might take.

John Cryer: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1086 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham)?
	[That this House notes that on Workers' Memorial Day on 28th April the London death watch unit, a joint initiative of the Battersea and Wandsworth Trades Union Council and the General Municipal & Boilermakers Union, London Region, issued new figures obtained from the Health and Safety Executive listing 191 work-related deaths since 1996 in the London area alone; further notes that the vast majority of these deaths were in the construction and maintenance industries; and believes that these sad new statistics highlight the importance of the Government bringing forward, at the earliest possible opportunity, the long-awaited legislation on corporate killing and the reform of the law on involuntary manslaughter designed to improve the chances of successfully prosecuting those employers known to have flouted health and safety regulations and which have contributed to the deaths of their employees.]
	The motion points out that, since 1996, there have been 191 work-related deaths in the London area alone, and most of them were in the maintenance and construction industries. It calls for legislation to make corporate killing a crime, which has been in the headlines a great deal recently because we are approaching the first anniversary of the Potters Bar train crash in which a number of people lost their lives and several were injured. Jarvis, the contractor involved, not only evaded prosecution but briefed the press to the effect that there had been sabotage when there was absolutely no evidence that that had taken place. That is a sign of the kind of people with whom we are dealing. Is it not about time that we had the crime of corporate killing on the statute book?

John Reid: I note what my hon. Friend says and the contents of the early-day motion to which he draws my attention. I am sure that, like many others in the House, I have a great deal of understanding of its contents and sympathy for the sentiments that it expresses. As he probably knows, the Government are committed to reforming the law to increase corporate liability for manslaughter, and we will do that when parliamentary time allows. Our intention is to provide a clearer avenue for securing successful prosecutions against undertakings whose health and safety standards have fallen far below what could reasonably be expected and where the failure to uphold standards has, in part, been responsible for a death.

Michael Jack: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement about the Government's relationships with British Aerospace? I ask this because, earlier this week, Sir Michael Boyce, the retiring Chief of the Defence Staff, once again questioned the Government's commitment to purchasing all 232 Eurofighters currently under construction in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Government have yet to give a firm commitment to buy the second tranche of those aircraft, and today British Aerospace put on notice more than 400 jobs at its Brough plant because the Government have yet to make up their mind on buying the advanced jet trainer. To remove those uncertainties from aerospace workers, particularly in the northern half of the country, will he arrange for a statement to clarify the Government's position?

John Reid: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Defence will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments. However, if I were my right hon. Friend, I would immediately respond by saying it is rather bizarre to question our commitment to providing the resources necessary for our armed forces when, unlike the previous Government, instead of slashing defence expenditure we have—for the first time in a long while—increased it. The right hon. Gentleman refers to British Aerospace, but he might like to recall that not only have the Government provided the biggest naval programme that any Government have ever provided for the Royal Navy but, only recently, we announced the building of two huge aircraft carriers in which the prime contractor will be British Aerospace.
	I will draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence, but my right hon. Friend may be rather less generous in accepting them than if they had carried more substance.

Barry Gardiner: I am conscious of the pressure on the parliamentary programme that additional debates on Iraq may have caused, but is my right hon. Friend able to find time for a debate on the Learning and Skills Council's review of the area cost uplift? He will know that, as a result of that review, colleges such as North West London college in my constituency may face a shortfall of up to £1.4 million each year. The criteria that the Learning and Skills Council used in assessing the area cost uplift take into account two conflicting factors. The first is the high cost of living in a particular area, and the other is the possible detraction of a particularly insalubrious area. It seems that the council has been able to use those criteria to argue whatever case suits it when it arrives at the final figures for the area cost uplift.

John Reid: I fully understand the importance that my hon. Friend places on the Learning and Skills Council. He will appreciate that it is not always possible, even with very important issues, to make time available because of the tremendous strain of business that we have in the House. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) announced a Commons calendar last October that gave precise, though provisional, dates of recesses. I remind the House—[Interruption.] I shall also remind the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), if she will listen to what I was about to say, that the dates were provisional and the calendar came with a health warning that it would
	"depend on the progress of business."—[Official Report, 31 October 2003; Vol. 391, c. 1001.]
	Events in Iraq had a considerable impact on the business of the House. There were demands for regular updates and for unprecedented debates on whether the House would support a conflict and our troops' participation. I do not complain about such demands and the House will accept that the Government responded fully to them. However, a considerable strain has been placed on the time available for the House to consider legislation. The situation changes on a daily basis, but with the support and co-operation of all hon. Members it still might be possible to achieve the dates that were provisionally announced.

Andrew Mitchell: The Leader of the House said a few moments ago—encouragingly, if somewhat tendentiously—that he and the Government are always prepared to allow sufficient time to discuss important issues in the Chamber. In the light of that comment, has he reflected on comments from senior members of the other place about the amount of time that the House discussed the Communications Bill? Lord Fowler of Sutton Coldfield, who is a highly respected and senior member, pointed out earlier this week that many clauses had not been discussed in the House. I spoke on Report about the market dominance of the BBC, and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport explained courteously to me afterwards that he would have liked to respond to my points but he did not have time in which to do that. Given that the Leader of the House has said that he intends to ensure that the House has sufficient time to consider matters, I hope that he will bear in mind the experience of our consideration of that Bill.

John Reid: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am aware of several things that he mentioned. I understand that the programming of the Bill allowed adequate time to cover several of the issues that he mentioned. If Opposition Members had not spent inordinate time on other matters, those to which he refers could have been covered adequately. He will appreciate that we try to treat such matters as seriously as possible despite the huge constraints that are placed on us. We try to allow sufficient time for consideration, but if Opposition Members spend inordinate time on issues that the hon. Gentleman might consider to be less important, that has an impact on more important issues.

Andrew Dismore: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent statement on the appalling suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, which was apparently conducted by two British citizens—Asif Mohammed Hanif, who killed three people as well as himself and injured many more; and Omar Khan Sharif, who is wanted in Israel for that attack? The statement should examine the links between those individuals and fundamentalist extremists in Britain such as Abu Hamza and organisations such as al-Muhajiroun. A representative of its leadership, Anjam Choudhury, spoke on Radio 4 this morning and appeared to encourage and endorse suicide attacks in Britain by citizens from overseas. Is it not about time that we got to grips with the appalling problem of Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism in Britain?

John Reid: First, I want to express my deep regret, and that of the whole House, about the events that led to the tragic deaths. Of course, there were more deaths among the Palestinians overnight. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his considerable work to expose the dangers posed by, and the work of, some of the extremists in this country. I was heartened that the Muslim Council of Britain, which claims to represent more than 350 Islamic organisations and mosques in the United Kingdom, condemned the words of al-Muhajiroun on the "Today" programme this morning. The secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Iqbal Sacranie, said that Mr. Choudhury's comments were inflammatory and would harm community relations in Britain. He said that it was alarming to think that young Britons could be involved in acts of such a ghastly nature. All hon. Members would agree with those words and with the words with which he finished:
	"Let us be absolutely clear. The loss of innocent life is against the laws of humanity"—
	irrespective, I would add, of the religion to which people adhere.

Sydney Chapman: Has the Leader of the House yet had time to find out what on earth has happened to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? I raised the matter before Easter and I had expected to hear from him. The Bill was considered in 12 short Committee sittings under a Government timetable motion meaning that most of it was not discussed at all—that practice is becoming more frequent. That happened more than three months ago, and four months will have passed before the House may consider the Bill's Report stage. Has the Bill been mislaid, will it be withdrawn, or is it on course?

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman has raised that point before. The Bill is important, but I cannot give him more comfort than I did last time. We make every effort to ensure that important Bills are passed as quickly as possible. That is not possible in all cases, but we have been assisted by several elements of the modernisation of the House such as pre-legislative scrutiny and carry-over. However, there is limited time even with such assistance. I hear the hon. Gentleman's comments but regret that I cannot give him a more definite answer.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will recognise the significance of the British construction industry not only to the Government's programme but to export potential. Will he grant a debate on that on the Floor of the House? If that is not possible, will he consider allowing questions about the British construction industry to be asked in one of the cross-cutting question sessions that have been so successfully held in Westminster Hall?

John Reid: I entirely agree. The construction industry is regarded as rather old fashioned in some quarters, but it is anything but that. It is at the forefront of British industrial practice, and I hope that all the work done by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is widely recognised by hon. Members. The United Kingdom construction industry is experiencing the strongest growth of such an industry in Europe and, in 2001, it secured £4.7 billion-worth of new work in other countries. It does not operate only at home, but in the international sphere. I regret that some Opposition Members have attempted to decry the Government's efforts to assist the construction industry, especially with regard to Iraq. I was pleased that prominent members of the industry, such as AMEC, wrote to the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to ask them to desist from so doing because the Government have been extremely effective at bringing what the British construction industry could offer to the attention of the relevant United States authorities, as well as making other international efforts. I hope that we can all pull together in support of our industry rather than dividing and trying to undermine efforts that have been made.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a few hon. Members standing. I wish to call them all but I need them to co-operate by asking brief questions of the Leader of the House.

John Wilkinson: Following the important question asked by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the murderous bomb attack in Tel Aviv, can the Leader of the House persuade the Home Secretary to make a statement on the possibility of reintroducing exit controls on passport holders at British airports and ports to ensure that the United Kingdom does not export terrorism to friendly countries overseas?

John Reid: I am sure that that matter is under discussion in the Foreign Office in the light of that regrettable event. All the implications of such an event are being considered as we speak, and have been for some time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments have been heard.

Kevan Jones: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1100?
	[That this House notes the statement by the honourable Member for Kingston and Surbiton on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that 'War is not an issue for the local elections. Our advice to candidates has been not to campaign on it because, with British citizens fighting, it's in poor taste'; further notes that in Manchester, Birmingham, Leicester and elsewhere, Liberal Democrat local election candidates have been seeking to con Muslim electors into voting for them by campaigning on an anti-Iraq war platform; and observes that such opportunistic hypocrisy by Liberal Democrat local government candidates, not to mention poor taste, is entirely characteristic of every aspect of Liberal Democrat campaigning.]
	I am concerned that despite assurances from those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that the war in Iraq would play no part in the local election campaigns, local Liberal Democrat council candidates are campaigning today on an anti-war platform while our brave service men and women serve in Iraq. Is it possible to find time to debate that subject so that the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen can answer for their local election candidates?

John Reid: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is perhaps too parti pris to comment that we are used to the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in the House and another thing on the doorstep. For the Liberal Democrats, it is often worse than that, however. To get elected in last year's local elections, Liberal Democrat candidates who were husband and wife managed both to oppose and to support hotly disputed issues of local parking restrictions during the same campaign. I suppose that shows us how family friendly their policies can be. Indeed, they are so expanded that they can incorporate contradictory points of view. I am sure that, like the House, the public recognise that pretending to be all things to all people is not credible. Those who promise everything to everyone rarely deliver anything to anyone.

Anne McIntosh: I back the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for an early debate on reform of the common agricultural policy. The Leader of the House may not be aware, but Brandons turkey factory closed with immediate effect this week, leading to a loss of 300 jobs at Dalton near Thirsk in the Vale of York. In all probability, 60 turkey farms will go out of business and 50 suppliers and contractors will lose access to that market, all of which is on top of an ongoing farm crisis across North Yorkshire. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is well briefed on the subject. Would it be possible to debate the matter before decisions are taken in Brussels on reform of the CAP?

John Reid: I referred to that matter earlier. The hon. Lady has taken a deep interest in such matters for many years. I agree with many of her comments and we are often on the same side of an argument, which I hope does not further antagonise the Conservative Front Bench towards her. I am sure that we will explore all opportunities to discuss that important issue, if not here then in other forums in the House.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Zimbabwean cricketers are about to arrive in this country. Many of us remember that during the worst excesses of the apartheid regime, the sports boycott was one of the most effective boycotts. Does he agree that this rather grubby tour gives all the wrong signals? We want a truly democratic regime in Zimbabwe that will deal with human rights abuses. With the best will in the world, it gives out the wrong signal to have their cricketers here.

John Reid: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments. What is happening in Zimbabwe is a deep disappointment to everyone who wanted a flourishing, prosperous and democratic future for its people after a long time during which they were prevented from controlling their destiny. It is one of the terrible tragic ironies of history that, after a brief interlude in historical terms, they find themselves once again denied real democratic control over their country. Perhaps it is even more tragic and ironic this time because someone who comes from the biggest ethnic group in Zimbabwe—the Shona tribe—is preventing the people from reaching their full democratic destiny.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I first tell the Leader of the House that neither he nor the Prime Minister can or should hide behind a sub judice rule that does not exist or apply in the case of tapping MPs' telephones? No one has been charged so the sub judice rule does not apply. Secondly, in respect of the Prime Minister's final comments yesterday, the Wilson rules have been breached or varied by him and a statement should be made, as the rules provided for an exception from the normal rule under which the Prime Minister does not normally comment on security matters. Thirdly, my parliamentary questions have been blocked under the blocking rule. That simply will not do. It cannot be sustained. The sooner that clarity is provided and a statement made from the Dispatch Box, the better for the Government and the House.

John Reid: On the final point, I am not aware of the details of my hon. Friend's questions. No doubt he will bring those to my attention outside the Chamber. On the allegations that appeared in a newspaper deriving from a book on telephone tapping, I have nothing to add. I note that my hon. Friend makes the distinction between arrests and charges. I also note, as he will do, that events in Northern Ireland change with amazing rapidity, almost by the minute as we now know, both on that subject and in respect of other events that take place there. What I say at one moment can be contradicted at another because circumstances change. Although he draws the distinction between investigation, arrest, charge and so on, I stand by the comments on that subject that I made about half an hour ago.

Points of Order

Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the context of the earlier exchange on telephone tapping, I found it a privilege to be called an ass because my master rode into Jerusalem on the coat of an ass. However, the whole House has been made an ass of in respect of what has just happened. The Leader of the House, a distinguished member of the Government who served in the Northern Ireland Office, told us that no decisions had been made; yet a junior Minister in Dublin confirmed to reporters that it was no secret that the elections were being postponed. That is bad enough, but the report also says:
	"the Northern Ireland Secretary Paul Murphy was due to make a statement in the House of Commons"
	today and that the
	"Prime Minister Tony Blair is to make a statement on Northern Ireland in 10 Downing Street at 2.30 pm, his official spokesman said".
	Surely the mother of Parliaments in England should be standing by its citizens and this Parliament. This is a democratic forum which, as I understand it, passed a law stating that the elections should be held on 29 May.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman because it will assist the House.
	I have been approached in the last 10 minutes and have agreed in exceptional circumstances, as the House will rise today for the long weekend, to a request from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the matter this afternoon. The statement will take place at a convenient moment after 2.30 pm.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for being so characteristically helpful, but I invite you to consider urgently what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) just told us. If the Prime Minister intends to make a statement at No. 10 Downing street, may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you or your Office should urgently contact the Prime Minister and invite—I might even say instruct—him to come to the House to make a statement on this important issue? Welcome though the Secretary of State may well be in the House, surely it would be absurd and an insult to the House if the Secretary of State were to come here to make a statement while the Prime Minister was making a statement elsewhere and denying us the opportunity to question him on the issue. That cannot be right, and I ask you urgently to follow up the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I cannot instruct the Prime Minister to come here.

Eric Forth: Well, invite him then.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman put it to me that I should instruct the Prime Minister, and I am telling him that I cannot. The Northern Ireland Secretary is coming to the House to make a short statement. I further understand that there will be a fuller statement next Tuesday. That is the position, and I can say no more.

Andrew MacKinlay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention the fact that Northern Ireland business will be discussed in Westminster Hall this afternoon? It will not have escaped anybody's attention that the core Members who are likely to be there are also likely to want to be here for the statement. Can you ensure that there is provision for a suspension of Westminster Hall, so that the great and the good and others can get here to hear this great statement? Otherwise, there will be a mass exodus from Westminster Hall and somebody will say, in parliamentary terms, "Oops, there's nobody here."

Mr. Speaker: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said before, is that I am bound by the rules of the House, and it is not within those rules to suspend the proceedings in Westminster Hall while a statement is being made on the Floor of the House.

Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the moment, under the law of this House an election has been called. What is more, I have contacted the authorities in Northern Ireland, and they tell me that, tomorrow morning, they are bound to take nominations for that election. How quickly will the House bring into conformity with the law what we are now being told is to happen?
	I had assurances from the Secretary of State, over and over again, that there would be no change to the date. It was impossible for any Northern Ireland Member of the House to get anything out of the Northern Ireland Office today; we were fobbed off every time we rang. Now we have come to the House and we are told that we will hear a statement, but that is not sufficient—the law has to be changed, or else all the candidates must, under the law, submit their nomination papers tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should seek an opportunity to catch my eye after the Northern Ireland Secretary has made his statement, and he can then put his questions to the Secretary of State.

Harry Barnes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the statement not at least be delayed until after 2.30 pm because of the position of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee? Westminster Hall will meet at half-past 2 to debate its important report on terrorism. We need an opportunity at least to have some discussion about that. If there is no possibility of abandoning or holding up those proceedings, perhaps Westminster Hall could finish its business early so that Members could return to the Floor of the House. If the statement was postponed for three quarters of an hour, so that it started at 3.15 pm, it would be possible to accommodate Northern Ireland Members on the Select Committee who want to debate the report in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Speaker: I must work on the basis of what is convenient to the House, and the House has always been keen to put it to me that Ministers must come here and inform the House. That is why I have made the exceptional decision to interrupt a debate to allow a Minister to come to the House to talk about a matter that is of great concern, particularly to Northern Ireland Members.

John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have always been most assiduous in protecting our rights and in ensuring that Ministers of the Crown, whenever possible, come first to the House to give statements on important matters. You said that the Northern Ireland Secretary thought that it would be convenient to come here this afternoon. Since his intention was known to the Government of the Republic of Ireland before business questions, would it not have been much more convenient for Members if the matter had been put on the annunciator in good time and we could have had the statement at the appropriate moment, namely, at the close of ordinary questions? We could then have had a full attendance of Members and this important matter could have been given the attention that it deserves. Can you bring to the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers the dissatisfaction of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Let me explain that my decision is an exceptional one. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it would have been more convenient if due notice of the statement had been given so that it could have gone on the annunciator. However, I faced the problem that we are about to go into a long weekend, and to refuse the request would have been to deny the House the opportunity to question the Secretary of State.

John Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me make my position plain. I understand some of the comments that have been made, and in view of my earlier remarks I wish to assure the House that when I entered the Chamber my information was that no decision to make any changes had been made. I would not want anyone here to think—not that anyone would—that I had in any way, inadvertently or otherwise, misled the House.
	This is a difficult situation, and often things change literally by the minute. I ask for the indulgence of right hon. and hon. Members in understanding how fast flowing decisions in Northern Ireland can be when they are dependent on all sorts of discussions. I can tell the House that, in the previous 24 hours, I have discussed the matter with the Northern Ireland Secretary a couple of times, but when I entered the Chamber no decision had been made. Of course, had I any inkling that a decision was likely to be made in the three quarters of an hour during which I was here, I would have shared that with the House.

Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to be helpful to the House, particularly to Northern Ireland Members, who will be very interested in the statement to be made by the Northern Ireland Secretary. Having said that, may I say that I had not for one moment doubted the integrity of the Leader of House? I do not think that a single Member doubted his integrity. He came here in total ignorance of what has subsequently happened.
	You, Mr. Speaker, have talked about the convenience of Members, particularly those from Northern Ireland. Would not it be possible to have the statement either at half-past 5, when Westminster Hall ceases its debate, or at 2 o'clock or even a quarter to 2 today, to enable Northern Ireland Members to hear the statement and ask supplementary questions and to participate in what is, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, a very important debate on terrorism in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Speaker: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that a Minister has asked to come to the House as soon as possible, and I have accepted that request. I know that it causes inconvenience in other parts of the House, but I have agreed to that request, and that is why the statement will be made at half-past 2. Orders of the Day

Broadband

[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on Broadband in Wales, (NC95), and the Government's response thereto, (HC 4130).]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Derek Twigg.]

Stephen Timms: It is no secret that compared with a number of other countries the UK has made a slow start with broadband communications. It is equally clear, though, that we are making rapid progress, and I believe that the whole House will welcome that. However, there are major challenges on the road to our target, which is that the UK should have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7, and in opening this important debate I want to concentrate on those challenges.
	In our debate on rural broadband in Westminster Hall on 25 March, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who I am pleased to see in his place, referred in generous terms to a report that I wrote on broadband, which was published in 1987. In that I forecast that there would be 600,000—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I think that he is entitled to the undivided attention of the House and I deplore other conversations—indeed, other meetings—taking place in the Chamber during a debate.

Stephen Timms: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In that report, I forecast that there would be 600,000 broadband connections in the UK by 2000. In fact, it took longer than that: 600,000 was reached by the time of my appointment to my present position a year ago this month. By that time, however, thanks to the work of my predecessors and the effective competitive environment that we have established in the UK, the number was growing rapidly: from 1987 it took until last October to reach 1 million UK broadband connections, but it will have taken only about nine months to add the second million, which I expect us to achieve in the course of this month. Today, there are more than 1.9 million connections—1 million via cable modems and 900,000 via ADSL—and the number is increasing by well over 30,000 a week, which is one of the fastest rates of growth anywhere. Independent research has identified the UK as having the second-largest broadband network in Europe after Germany. More than 70 per cent. of households can access one of the mass-market broadband services.
	All those data give us grounds for a good deal of satisfaction and an opportunity to congratulate all those in the service-providing organisations on what they have achieved. Those organisations include BT; the cable companies NTL and Telewest; the broadband internet service providers Pipex, AOL, Freeserve and, on some estimates, more than 300 others; wireless providers such as Firstnet; and committed locally based innovators such as Rutland Online and Alston Cybermoor. I believe that the whole House will join in congratulating them on the progress made in the past 12 months.

Edward Garnier: Unfortunately, I was unable to join the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) for the Westminster Hall debate on rural broadband access. If he has an opportunity, will the Minister say when he envisages 100 per cent. accessibility to broadband being achieved? Houses, including my own, in rural constituencies such as mine and my hon. Friend's cannot get broadband, I presume because of the sparsity factor. Next Friday, I am to open a broadband business centre, but that is in quite a big village; we in the smaller rural hamlets cannot get broadband—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Edward Garnier: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was rather long.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not anticipate my ruling, but I think he guesses that he has gone on too long.

Stephen Timms: As far as I know, nowhere in the world has 100 per cent. broadband availability, but I shall address the issues that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises soon.

Lawrie Quinn: I add my congratulations to all the providers my hon. Friend mentioned. In my area, that the local exchanges have been enabled is owed to a community local partnership—the FAST group—going out and persuading people. Is not that the way to broaden the broadband agenda for Britain?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I join him in paying tribute to all the community campaigns that have developed throughout the country and encouraged people to sign up for the broadband demand registration schemes that some operators have implemented. BT tells me that it has now upgraded 104 exchanges for broadband as a result of its demand registration scheme, and it plans in the next few months to announce targets that, if they are met, will take ADSL coverage to 90 per cent. of UK households. Service providers have found that the initiative of community campaigns has built demand that makes their investments in broadband worthwhile in a large number of communities around the country, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the achievements of those campaigns, many of which are continuing.
	I welcome the enthusiasm and resources that the regional development agencies have contributed, recognising the importance of broadband for small firms in their regions. In addition, we are witnessing the rapid roll-out of wi-fi technology, which enables public access to wireless broadband in public places such as coffee shops and business hotels, and which will become a significant element in provision.
	Congratulating those who have contributed to the achievements of the past year is not to underestimate the scale of the challenge that remains. Almost 30 per cent. of households are not within reach of a mass-market broadband service. Almost 5,000 small businesses in such areas use satellite broadband, which is available more or less everywhere—it may be the approach being employed in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). However, for many that is a rather expensive solution, so we must go much further in extending the availability of the affordable services that are now having such an impact on competitiveness in the areas in which they are available. That is the reason that broadband is so important. Broadband enables companies to work better and faster, boosting competitiveness and creating new jobs and services. Increasingly, MPs—mainly those representing rural areas not served by broadband—tell me that firms in parts of their constituency are at a disadvantage, in some cases to the extent that they might consider moving elsewhere.
	The experience of Sarah Smith, a specialist medical writer based in a village in north Wales, underlines the point. She uses satellite broadband and finds that the new connection saves her about two days a month in time spent waiting for large files to download. She no longer has to alert her ISP when she is expecting an especially large file. The installation was not cheap, but it has saved her money. Malvern Boilers, a manufacturer of condensing boilers that employs 20 people in Worcestershire, found that broadband allowed it an instantaneous e-mail service, resulting in much better communications with its suppliers and customers. Another result of adopting broadband is that the company uses the internet far more to aid its marketing. The company has found real competitive advantages in broadband. In the Westminster Hall debate, I mentioned the case of Quintdown Press in Cornwall, whose proprietor I met during a visit last autumn. Broadband is available in rural parts of Cornwall through the Access for Cornwall through Telecommunications for New Opportunities Worldwide, the ACT NOW partnership, funded by European Union regional development funds.

David Drew: My hon. Friend will be aware of the route map—not for the middle east, but for rural broadband—recently published under the auspices of BT, which has resulted in the creation of a number of partnerships in various remote parts of the country. Does he agree that there is a need to increase their number? What role can the Government play, not only with BT, but with RDAs, county councils and other local government bodies, and small and medium-sized business, to bring those partnerships together so that they can genuinely effect the type of changes he is describing?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will spend some time exploring later in my speech. However, I agree that the partnerships now being established with RDAs as key players will be an important part of the solution.
	To return to the example of Quintdown Press, by using broadband rather than a van to transfer artwork, the company has been able to reduce the turnaround on print jobs at its shop in Truro from three days to one day. The impact on the quality of its service and on the competitiveness of its customers' businesses is significant. The examples I have given show how important it is that we step up our efforts to extend the availability of broadband and that we maximise the resulting economic gains for rural communities and the UK as a whole.
	Just as broadband will be key in the commercial economy, so it will be key in delivering the reforms to public services that are the Government's highest priority. The past few years have witnessed dramatic improvements in public services and a new confidence on the part of those who deliver them and the rest of us who depend on them. Taking full advantage of technological advances will be key to the next stage of reform, and broadband will be at the heart of that. That is why, between them, Ministers in education, health, the criminal justice system and local government have earmarked £1 billion from their spending settlement last summer for spending on broadband communications.
	In education, every school will be provided with broadband by 2006—at least two megabits two-way in each primary school and eight megabits per second in every secondary school. So far, about a quarter of England's schools have broadband. The roll-out of broadband to every school will open up pupils' access to vast new online resources for teaching and learning.

James Paice: Will not two problems relate to the issue of connection of schools, bearing in mind the huge expenditure that the Government have committed to it? Obviously we all want to see schools connected. First, there are large parts of the country where pupils may be able to use broadband at school but will not be able to do their homework on it because the areas in which they live are not connected to it. Secondly, having invested a great deal of money in connecting schools, that will be of no use to the community because the network goes through the Government network and therefore cannot be used as an access route for the rest of the community.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue on which I want to spend quite a lot of time. Essentially, I believe that there are ways of leveraging the investment that will be made in broadband for public services to extend access to those services to other users. I shall explain in a little more detail how I see that happening. The hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the Cambridgeshire schools' broadband project, which is demonstrating clear benefits in time saved and much greater use of online educational resources. That has translated into increased levels of attention—particularly from boys, and we know that under-achievement on the part of boys is a key challenge for schools—and improvements in performance. That is what we want to see throughout the school system.
	Every doctor's surgery will have at least a 256 kilobytes per second connection by March 2004. There will be larger facilities of 2 megabytes per second and more. Patients will have electronic records so that, wherever they are in the national health service, all the key details about their medical history will be accessible by the professionals responsible for their care. Through the new NHS university, professional development material will be delivered online via broadband to NHS staff at their place of work, with the Government investing in their skills.
	The criminal justice system will be transformed from the paper-based system that is now in operation. We shall see radial changes as well in local government.
	As well as delivering these important improvements to public services, the investment in broadband by the public services as a customer will provide the opportunity to extend access to broadband services into many communities where they are not available at present.

Brian White: My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable work that is done in Canada, where those involved examined the barriers that stopped communities using various networks and opened up the different networks to communities. Will my hon. Friend assure us that the efforts that were made in Canada will be replicated by Government Departments in this country, and that we will not have the mentality that prevents universal access?

Stephen Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are some important lessons for us to learn from what has been achieved in Canada. I agree with him also about the direction in which we need to go. I shall explain how we see us making a reality of that. In principle, once the school or the doctor's surgery in a community has broadband, there should be the opportunity for others in that community to access the services provided by it. To make a reality of that possibility by organising the demand from public services in aggregating them and so creating a viable business case for the provision of broadband in areas where it is not yet available will be the key. That is in line with the Canadian experience and experience elsewhere, and will lead to the next phase of broadband development in the UK.

Andrew Robathan: As I understand it, many public service connections are delivered down a dedicated private line. Is the Minister saying that all these private lines will be accessible to public use at some stage in the near future?

Stephen Timms: I shall explain how I see these things going forward. I can tell the House that I shall be chairing a ministerial steering group with representatives from each of the major Government Departments to drive forward the development of this project and to ensure that we make it a success. It will ensure that individual departmental programmes contribute to the greatest degree possible to broadband roll-out in the UK, while also ensuring that the Departments are provided with value-for-money services that are consistent with the targets and timetables which they have set. The regional developmental agencies will be involved as well, and a project board will direct day-to-day running. I can announce the appointment this week of a director for broadband in the Department of Trade and Industry, who will be delivering on an important recommendation that was made to us by the Broadband Stakeholder Group in its most recent report.
	We have quite a short window of opportunity given the imminence of substantial public sector investments in broadband. We need to establish the balance of demand aggregation between national and regional levels, and set up structures to carry out aggregation and procurement in an efficient way. The project will play a big part in extending broadband availability for public sector use throughout the country. To answer the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) specifically, we shall be ensuring that the infrastructure investment being delivered will make broadband more widely available. That is available to small and medium-sized enterprises and others in areas where broadband has not been available until now, so giving a major boost to the economy in rural areas in particular.

Robert Key: Will the Minister kindly tell us who is to be the director of broadband? Will it be a career civil servant or someone from the private sector?

Stephen Timms: It will be a career civil servant from the Department of Trade and Industry.
	An interesting example is provided by what has been happening in the west midlands. Advantage West Midlands, the regional development agency, spotted that in its area the contracts for two broadband networks—both of them were in the education network—were up for renewal this summer. One of the networks is serving all the schools in the region and the other is serving all the universities. By bringing both networks into a single contract, it will be possible to offer all the users greater functionality for the same price. After that, the intention is to open up the infrastructure to users outside the public sector—for example, to provide the backhaul into the telecommunications network for wireless broadband initiatives serving rural areas. Final contract negotiations are taking place with a company, Synetrix, and the preferred telecommunications supplier will be the cable company Telewest. Once they have their infrastructure in place, other users outside the public sector will be able to take advantage of the system as well.

Lawrie Quinn: Is it not the case that the flexibility of the project that my hon. Friend has outlined underpins the development of broadband in Britain? When his group is looking for good quality examples throughout the country, will it make particular reference to the mobile set-up that has been brought forward by the Discovery project of North Yorkshire county council, which goes out to some of the most rural and isolated parts of the county, including my constituency, and affords the linkages while debunking some of the myths about the so-called digital divide?

Stephen Timms: That sounds like a welcome initiative. There is much work to be done in communicating the benefits of the technology and ensuring that business users and other users understand them.
	It is sometimes suggested that we need a generalised subsidy to make broadband happen in the UK. I do not agree with that. That is not the way to get a competitive and sustainable broadband market throughout the country. I think that we shall see, through competition between the service providers, the momentum that will drive the roll-out that we need. However, there will be cases where the market will not deliver and targeted support may well be needed. Where the lack of broadband availability is a limiting factor in economic regeneration, that can be a justification for using existing funds for regional economic development. The RDAs have £1.8 billion at their disposal in the coming year. We have seen the success of that approach in Cornwall's ACT NOW project, which I mentioned, which draws also on European Union funding.
	Companies are coming forward with proposals to address these issues while recognising that we need to achieve a competitive outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to the work that BT has done in coming forward with five models, building on its experience with ACT NOW, which are applied to other circumstances and allowing for open tendering so that other operators can bid for contracts as well. These models have merit as a general framework for a partnership approach to developing broadband schemes that maximise the prospects for competition in the supply of broadband for areas where there is now none.

David Drew: I appreciate the Minister giving way again—he has been characteristically generous with his time. Does he accept that there is a difficulty in rural areas, where community campaigns do not regard ADSL as a solution, usually on economic grounds? As he knows, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking evidence on this topic at the moment, and we were impressed by the campaign to bring broadband to Blewbury, which has gone for a wireless solution. If people go for a solution other than ADSL, people who join up need to be aware that ADSL is not going to come in afterwards and sweep away the investment that has been put in. I should therefore be grateful if my hon. Friend would comment on the need to guarantee that communities that are looking for innovative solutions will not have their legs cut away from under them afterwards.

Stephen Timms: I am glad to do so. Let me give my hon. Friend an example from Oakham, the county town of Rutland, where in March I visited Rutland Online, which employs 15 people. It started six years ago by hosting websites and providing e-commerce solutions for businesses in the area, but broadband has become an increasingly major part of what it is doing. There is no broadband service at all in Oakham today, but in the next few months three separate broadband services will be established. An operator called Independent Networks is taking orders and will use local loop unbundling to provide the first broadband service in the area. On 21 May, BT expects to upgrade its local exchange for ADSL, the registration trigger threshold having been reached. Later on, Rutland Online will establish a wireless broadband service with which it expects to be able to support 60 small and medium-sized enterprise users. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that the fact that by that time there will be two other broadband services in the area is not deterring Rutland Online from introducing the wireless service as well. There is therefore potential for wireless and other solutions to coexist.
	The main obstacle to the provision of more affordable broadband in rural areas concerns the fact that the initial investment required to provide broadband by any technology other than satellite is expected to obtain a slower return in rural areas, where there are fewer people within a given distance and where the cost of backhaul is likely to be greater than in areas of high population density. The so-called backhaul issue—the cost of connecting a local exchange or a new wireless base station to the core network—is a major barrier to the extension of broadband to rural areas. Rutland Online, for example, told me that of the £90,000 cost of providing a service for two years backhaul will account for £50,000. However, there are ways forward, including alternative technologies which can do the job more cheaply and, in particular, realise the potential of plans for public sector broadband connectivity in the way in which I have described. In the west midlands, it is envisaged that the network that I described could be used to provide backhaul for wireless broadband services in rural areas. That is an important part of the solution for rural areas.
	ADSL, of course, is not the only solution, although it will be available to a substantial proportion of the rural population in time. We have talked about satellite, and there are schemes to help small and medium-sized enterprises gain access to satellite broadband, including the remote area broadband inclusion trial or RABBIT initiative, and other satellite schemes such as those led by the south-east RDA and Yorkshire Forward. Over 1,000 small rural firms across the country have benefited from those schemes so far, with the provision of funding towards the cost of a satellite connection. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has drawn attention to the importance of wireless, and there are already pilot projects such as those in Alston and Hawkshead in Cumbria and Tendring in Essex which use wireless technology to get broadband to residents and SMEs. I am sure that we will hear of other examples in our debate. I hope that the imminent auction of 3.4 GHz wireless licences will help to spread wireless broadband a lot further.
	I should like to draw attention to an imaginative development that has taken place since the launch of the Alston Cybermoor project in Cumbria 18 months ago. With public financial support to help get the project going, it addressed issues of economic regeneration, lifelong learning and access to electronic Government services. It has been successful, and has achieved over 300 local connections and five public access points, but now faces the problem of how to keep going. Local residents have taken the initiative by adopting a social enterprise model, and have registered as a co-operative that other residents can join and help to develop. They have mutualised the public sector investment, and other communities could benefit from looking carefully at that example.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) talked about what has been happening in Canada. On a recent visit there, I met someone who was concerned about the steady economic decline of his rural community and had set up a not-for-profit organisation to roll out a fixed wireless broadband network, providing affordable broadband access to homes and businesses in the region. That service is now serving a community of 100,000 residents. A social enterprise and co-operative model may well be the way forward for areas in the UK as well.

Brian White: One problem is the availability of skills so that people can provide those services. While the learning and skills councils often concentrate on people who need basic skills, there is not much support for people who need medium skills that would allow those companies to develop. Will my hon. Friend address that issue?

Stephen Timms: I know that my hon. Friend welcomed very much the launch of e-skills UK on 8 April. He is right about the need to focus on those technical skills, which is a high priority for us. When the Government publish the skills strategy on which the DTI is working with the Department for Education and Skills and other Departments, he will see that intermediate technical skills are of particular importance to it.
	Another interesting possibility is the use of the electricity infrastructure for broadband, with the so-called Powerline technology for delivering broadband along ordinary electricity cables. Some of the £30 million UK broadband fund has been used on projects in Crieff and Campbeltown on trials of that technology, and other projects are planned in Stonehaven and Winchester, the results of which will be interesting.

Chris Mole: While my hon. Friend is holding forth on the range of different technologies that can deliver broadband, will he turn his attention to the future prospects of broadband? I entirely accept that some Members are frustrated that their communities cannot even receive ADSL, but it will be important for the UK to ensure that as the widespread delivery of even higher band widths becomes increasingly economic we begin to ensure that people have the skills to deliver to the user products and services that will take advantage of 10 megabytes and higher speeds.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the fact that in due course we will need to do a great deal of further work on the capacity and availability of much higher speed networks. Whereas 93 per cent. of public libraries have broadband at 2 megabytes a second or more, Middlesbrough libraries are adopting a broadband capacity of 2 gigabytes a second. Undoubtedly, we will need to address that much more widely in due course.
	I shall work closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of broadband. Together with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we are collecting information on current projects and best practice in rural areas. The Countryside Agency has commissioned research, due to report this month, which looks at best practice in a number of projects. Research has been carried out on evidence of the use of broadband to increase productivity of businesses in rural areas, which account for a third of UK small businesses.
	The challenge of broadband is an important economic challenge for the UK. Delivering broadband will be an important step towards improving public services, raising productivity and promoting inclusion, and it is important that in due course every part of the country should be able to benefit and not just a few.
	I hope that I have reassured the House today that we have made good progress, but that the Government are determined to address the significant challenges that remain, and to maintain and build on the rate of progress that we have seen over the past year, so that the rich promise of broadband Britain can be fulfilled.

Andrew Robathan: I was interested in the Minister's speech and in his announcement about the director of broadband. That is a positive development, although we urge the Government to go further.
	If I may say so, to hold the debate today is perverse. The topic is enormously important, as the Minister rightly said. It is especially important for rural areas that cannot get access to broadband, whereas urban areas generally find it easier to get access. The Minister will know of the Country Land and Business Association's campaign on rural access to broadband. However, almost all rural Members are currently in their constituencies supporting their local candidates, so we are left with a few hon. Members present, including one or two from rural areas. I am not sure whether Milton Keynes counts as rural, but let us assume so.

Brian White: indicated assent.

Andrew Robathan: My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—who led a debate on 25 March—and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), both of whom were particularly keen to be present for the debate, have had to apologise because they had to go back to their constituencies.

Lawrie Quinn: My area, which is England's largest rural county, North Yorkshire, is, as I said in my earlier intervention, making a considerable impact in delivering broadband to rural areas. The experiments in e-enablement of the electoral process allow hon. Members present today to vote via the internet or other mechanisms. That is reaching all parts of the country.

Andrew Robathan: Yes, but I am sure local govt candidates in the hon. Gentleman's Labour association would have been pleased to see him in person, rather than in e-form. [Interruption.] It is suggested that the hon. Gentleman's e-form is better than his person, but I would not dream of commenting on that. Personally, I voted by post a couple of weeks ago.
	In the circumstances, the debate is a bit of a filler. I am sorry about that. It should be an important debate that is well attended, but sadly it is not. The Order Paper states that the First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee is of particular relevance, yet I note that there is certainly not a single Conservative MP from Wales in the Chamber, nor are there any MPs from Wales from any other party. Also, I regret that the debate will be interrupted by the important statement on Northern Ireland.
	The importance of broadband is that it gives us the potential to change our lives and the way that we work, and it is doing so. The information highway—the internet—has been compared to railways in the 19th century and roads in the 20th century. It is of enormous importance to communications. E-commerce has arrived and is having an impact. Politicians should be cautious about being too visionary in their claims on technical matters, or too reactionary. Business men should also avoid being reactionary. Only three years ago, the then chairman of BT, Iain Vallance, said that he saw no market for residential broadband. When I heard that, it reminded me of politicians between the first and second world wars who extolled the virtues of mounted cavalry in preference to noisy and smelly tanks.
	It was the business of the chairman of BT to have a little vision, and politicians can assist in that where necessary, but we should beware of technical aspects, especially if we are not qualified. The Minister is extremely well qualified. He wrote a book on broadband back in the 1980s, before most of us had even heard of it. I trust that he is using his knowledge to assist in its development. I confess that I come to the debate with an O-level in physics with chemistry from 1966, but neither we, nor our constituents, need technical qualifications or detailed knowledge to understand the concepts and benefits that the technology can bring us. It is for others to explain the technology to those of us—I see one or two others in the Chamber—who may need it explained from time to time.
	I applaud the Government's stated target, which could be called a vision, of having the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. We support that, although I am not entirely sure whether it will come about. In my speech, I shall discuss the importance of broadband, what the Government and the public sector can do, what the role of competition and private enterprise should be, and possible future developments.
	E-commerce is changing business, almost to the extent that the industrial revolution did 250 years ago. Laymen like myself use Amazon, Sainsbury's to you, and Tesco.com. E-commerce is entering every nook and cranny of business, and every aspect of business can benefit from it. It can benefit plumbers to pharmaceutical giants. Businesses are using the internet, and they want to use broadband. The information society is also benefiting all public services, which can only improve as a result. It is changing the way in which people communicate with their friends and access information at home. We all accept that the rapid introduction of broadband is important for the UK, and we support the Government in that.
	My access to the internet on the House of Commons network, which of course is broadband—Demon, I think—is almost instantaneous. I contrast that with my experience at home in Lutterworth in my constituency, where I spend hours waiting for it to dial up and then get cut off after about two minutes, which is rather trying.
	Although we may all agree on the targets and benefits, we note that the strategy is not yet working as we would wish. The Minister touched on that. Ministers want broadband to be accessible to all parts of the country, yet terrestrial broadband is still unavailable to one third of the UK's 24 million households, including two out of five suburban households. In rural areas, as we know, access is patchy. We want diversification in the rural economy. The Minister mentioned speaking to the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life, which is important. Areas such as mine—and those of all my hon. Friends in the Chamber and some on the Government Benches—where farming is in the doldrums have many small businesses, which need fast, cheap and easy access to the information highway.

Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. Given his broad welcome for the project, can he confirm that the £30 million that the Government have allocated to regional development agencies to develop broadband access, particularly in rural areas, would be continued and developed further by his party?

James Paice: That was a one-off.

Andrew Robathan: Indeed. Moreover, I wonder whether the £30 million could be better spent. I shall deal with that in detail and answer the hon. Gentleman, but I should prefer to do it in my own order than in his.

David Drew: I emphasise a different point that has been made by several of us. The issue is not just giving people access, but the follow-up afterwards. Whenever I speak to BT, the biggest criticism is of the amount at which it has set its trigger level, which could be seen as an unfair system, but it is the one that we have. What follows or does not follow is not taking the broadband revolution forward as quickly as it might. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

Andrew Robathan: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks should follow.

David Drew: There is a lack of follow-up. People who get on to the trigger list do not see it through. That is galling, because it means that the process is not being taken forward.

Andrew Robathan: I understand now what the hon. Gentleman means; that having registered, people do not take up their registration at a later date. I put that down to consumer choice. BT is willing to enable an exchange at what it says is half the likely return that it will receive, because it believes that that will grow. I am sure that BT is right.
	Britain has little more than a quarter of the number of broadband connections per head of population of Sweden, and we lag woefully behind Japan and Germany. Measured against the Government target, we are sixth among the G7 countries, ahead only of Italy. We are also behind countries such as Iceland and Portugal. The Minister may be about to tell me that that situation has changed in the last week.

Stephen Timms: Those figures will be reassessed in the course of the next few weeks and I am confident that the new ones will tell a rather happier tale than the one that the hon. Gentleman is relating.

Andrew Robathan: We will welcome that. We led the way in narrowband internet access, mobile telephony and digital television.

Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should follow Germany's example where the incumbent, Deutsche Telekom, put in DSL to prevent competition when it had to divest itself of its cable companies?

Andrew Robathan: I did not say that or suggest it. The hon. Gentleman will know that Deutsche Telekom has its own serious commercial problems, partly caused by its investment in DSL.
	I come now to the Government's role and how the public sector can assist. I was interested in what the Minister said about how public sector enablement will help us. Technical improvements are moving faster than Government legislation or regulation, or bureaucratic minds, possibly can. Nevertheless, there is a big role to be played in creating the environment in which broadband can be accessed easily throughout the UK. The situation is improving, so I do not knock the Government.
	On 20 March my exchange in Lutterworth still had a few to go to reach the trigger mechanism, but in May we should be enabled, and the local Member of Parliament is expected to be asked to inaugurate—or whatever one does—the exchange. Throughout Britain more exchanges are being enabled. I understand that under the trigger mechanism, 59 have been enabled, making a total of 1,182 BT exchanges, and more than 300 rural exchanges have reached the trigger levels.

Edward Garnier: I am interested to hear about my hon. Friend's experience in Lutterworth, which is about 40 miles from my area. The Lutterworth exchange will presumably serve between 15,000 and 20,000 inhabitants, not only within the town itself but within the wider area. I am concerned about the smaller hamlets that are desperate to get on to broadband but which do not have the populations to justify the sort of registration that he has been talking about.

Andrew Robathan: My hon. and learned Friend is right to be concerned about smaller hamlets and isolated farmhouses where there may have been diversification or where it is simply the farm business that requires broadband.
	To be fair to BT, it is reacting well. Since Sir Iain Vallance's extraordinary comments about residential broadband, BT has been pushing things forward. The Government are also committed to connecting public services, about which we have heard. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said—I hope that he will explain further when he replies to the debate—the Government have gone somewhat awry. In my constituency, schools are being enabled. For example, Sherrier primary school in my home town of Lutterworth has broadband. I thought that it had a midband speed, but the Minister tells me that it has over 1 megabyte. Why should not that school have brought broadband access to the whole of Lutterworth? That would seem the obvious way to go. Sherrier and other primary schools have obtained access through the East Midlands Broadband Consortium. Similarly, Sapcote library has a connection, but through the People's Network, which I believe the NHS uses as well. The library has broadband, but at the Sapcote exchange, which has a trigger of 350 connections, only 212 have registered so far, so it will have to wait.
	BT and others tell me that aggregated public sector demand, which often uses the BT network but private dedicated lines, could pull all that broadband demand through to the private sector and to all homes. Will the Minister clarify that? I am still not entirely clear about whether those private dedicated lines can be used as a backhaul to bring broadband to every home in an area.

Stephen Timms: I shall be happy to explain further what I had in mind when I reply, but once the infrastructure has been provided to meet the public sector commitments, it is available to other users as well; for example, to provide backhaul from a local wireless broadband service, if that is a way of meeting the needs of a particular community. I should also add that the 2 megabyte per second two-way target for primary schools is for 2006. I am not saying that every primary school has that at the moment. That certainly is not yet the case.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the Minister for that. He has an enormous knowledge on which many of us rely.
	The roll-out is fairly slow. The schools completion will not be until 2006. As the Minister has now told us, some of the connection is only midband. When Sapcote library—sitting on its midband—and perhaps Sherrier primary school are surrounded by an enabled exchange, the residential houses on either side will have 512 kilobytes whereas the library and the school will, as I understand it, still have a slower midband connection.

Chris Mole: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Robathan: I will, but it will be for the last time because I wish to sit down shortly after 2.30 pm because of the extremely important Northern Ireland statement.

Chris Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the UK online access in particular that can be obtained through public libraries is an important part of creating public awareness about the capabilities of broadband, and that the Government are entirely right to promote such facilities, because if people see the benefits for their home or business, it will lead them to register, showing service providers such as BT that the demand exists?

Andrew Robathan: I agree up to a point that it is valuable for libraries to have broadband but perhaps—funnily enough, the Government are coming around to this with the appointment of a director of broadband—that could be done in a slightly different way to allow access for residential and business users.
	The private sector is usually of greater importance than the public sector in developments such as this, and I think that the private sector will drive this matter. It has been suggested that the DTI is obsessed with competition in the roll-out of broadband, although I do not necessarily agree with that. I tend to the view of others in the industry who suggest that competition is driving development, technology and access. However, the Government should take a pragmatic view and consider what they want to achieve with their investment. The present competitive and dynamic market has been largely achieved by private investment.
	We are already the most competitive in the EU and to that extent the Government's policy on driving competition has been right. We have already heard about the number of connections; 1 million cable connections were announced yesterday in a press release from Telewest and NTL. Interestingly, BT tells me that it has only 22.6 per cent. of the share of the retail broadband market because over half is on cable. It has 51 per cent. of the retail DSL market, 49 per cent. going to other internet service providers. I applaud that and I congratulate cable providers. I also congratulate BT, which is striving to increase its share of the market. It would be churlish of me not to do so, as I received from it in today's post an invitation to the CBI annual dinner. I do not think that that involves a registrable interest, but I do not want to be rude to my hosts.
	We want the Government to create conditions in which the broadband market can thrive. I reiterate that we are not sure that all investment in the public sector is currently being made along the right lines. A £30 million grant has been made available to RDAs, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) mentioned. I am not sure whether that is the right approach. My RDA, the East Midlands Development Agency, is very good at producing big, glossy documents such as the one that I am holding, which is the second copy that it has sent me; it obviously knew that I put the first copy in the bin, where I will put this one. It is a very glossy document featuring nice pictures of lambs and flowers, but it does not set out much action.
	EMDA plans to use its share of the £30 million on a wired-up communities competition that will take three years to come to fruition. As we have heard, this is a very fast-moving field and we would not expect the situation to be the same in three years' time. Indeed, more than 30,000 new broadband connections are made every week. None the less, the same RDA blames the lack of vision in providing broadband services to rural areas on the slowdown in the international IT industry and the money spent by mobile phone companies on the 3G auction. Anybody who has seen the RDAs at work knows that they are not likely to drive fast broadband roll-out.
	I wish to speak briefly about the future before I sit down to allow the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to speak. As I said, we should beware of being too visionary about technical matters. Of course, "broadband" is a somewhat amorphous and imprecise term anyway and is used in respect of anything between 100 kilobytes and several megabytes, as I understand it.
	Higher bandwidth will be offered, largely because of competition. The process is a continuing one and is increasingly sophisticated. People are investigating compression technology, which could allow fibre-optic cable to be laid from every exchange to the remote concentrating units. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) finds this so funny; perhaps he would like to give us a digression about remote concentrating units, which are situated at the end of every street and in villages. The Government need to be flexible and enabling, and not dirigiste and controlling.
	A particular proposal that has been raised with me relates to something called wi-fi. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, North knows a lot about wi-fi, which would use wireless standard 802.11. The Minister might like to mention the proposal, which I understand could lead to a system that would not require the digging up of roads but would not be entirely wireless, as it could be provided through wires to small, remote communities.
	I note that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is waiting to speak and I shall conclude my remarks. Although broadband has not been on the lips of everybody to whom I have spoken on the doorsteps of Lutterworth and elsewhere during canvassing for the local elections, which is what most hon. Members are doing now, I suspect that it should be. It is an enormously important issue—

David Maclean: In Penrith.

Andrew Robathan: As my right hon. Friend says, broadband is enormously important in Penrith as well as elsewhere. We hope to address it further and to see more of it, and I hope that the Government will be able to answer one or two of the questions that I have asked in my brief speech. We now look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland

Paul Murphy: With permission, and with thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I intend that this should be only a brief statement, but I propose, again with the permission of the House, to return to the House next week to speak at greater length about the issues involved and to allow Northern Ireland Members in particular, but other hon. Members too, to participate fully in respect of such a statement.
	We have, with the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland, made a great deal of progress since the institutions were suspended in October 2002 towards restoring devolved government on a stable footing and completing the process of implementing the Belfast agreement. We have made it clear throughout those discussions, however, that in order to do so, it was essential to complete the permanent transition to exclusively peaceful means in Northern Ireland politics.
	A very substantial set of proposals has been discussed by the two Governments with the political parties and broadly accepted by them setting out what acts of completion would involve. They include a joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments setting out how we would secure full implementation of the Belfast agreement, with detailed annexes on security normalisation, devolution of policing and justice and human rights, equality and identity. There is also an agreement between the two Governments on how future adherence by all parties and the Governments to the commitments set out in the agreement and joint declaration would be monitored and arrangements for remedying breaches of those commitments. Finally, there is a scheme for the handling of the cases of those on the run for terrorist offences.
	We have also received a statement from the IRA about acts of completion, but despite the intensive efforts by the leadership of Sinn Fein to clarify the key points, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity on the crucial issue of whether the IRA is prepared for a full, immediate and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity, including military attacks, training, targeting, intelligence gathering, acquisition or development of arms or weapons, other preparations for terrorist campaigns, punishment beatings and attacks and involvement in riots. Without clarity here, we will not be able to build the trust that is necessary to restore devolved government.
	We have concluded that this issue cannot be resolved during an election campaign. We have therefore concluded that we should postpone the elections until the autumn to provide more time to rebuild the trust that will allow the restoration of the institutions based on the agreement and its full implementation.
	We have not so far published our proposals because they were part of a whole package that would also have included clear statements on exclusively peaceful means, but we believe that in the interest of proper public debate, we should now make them available. We shall publish the proposals this afternoon and call on the IRA to publish its statement. We, for our part, will go ahead and implement as much of the joint declaration as we can, where that is not conditional on clear and definitive acts of completion. Copies of the joint declaration will be placed in the Library of the House.
	The Prime Minister is speaking this afternoon about this issue and he will go to Dublin next week to discuss the next steps with the Taoiseach. I understand that there will be a strong wish in the House to discuss these issues once hon. Members have read the Government proposals. As I said, I therefore propose to make a fuller statement to the House next week, and a Bill for the postponement of the elections will follow shortly afterwards. But I believed that it was essential to give the earliest possible notice to the House of our intention that elections should be postponed, and that is why we are making the announcement here today.

Quentin Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me a brief oral summary of the decision that the Government had reached a few moments ago. May I say how much I regret that the Prime Minister has apparently decided to make a statement at the same time to the press in Downing street? That shows where his priorities lie, and he has relied upon his colleague, the Secretary of State, to come and deal with the House of Commons, where the awkward questions are likely to be asked. We will all draw our own conclusions from that.
	It is known in this House, and I repeat it today, that we thoroughly support the robust attitude of the Government in demanding full clarification on the three vital matters from Sinn Fein-IRA, and we shall continue to support them on that for as long as they remain equally robust. However, the Secretary of State will understand if I say that I will not comment on the two documents, the joint Governments' declaration and the IRA's declaration, until I have seen them. It is welcome that we will see them shortly—I gather that they are to be published this afternoon—and we look forward to commenting on Tuesday.
	The main burden of what the Secretary of State said is dramatic. It is that despite the fact that the Government came to the House at the beginning of March to ask, exceptionally, for a month's extension of the date of the Assembly elections from 1 May to 29 May, now, six weeks later, they are saying that they want to suspend the elections again. Will the Government be absolutely clear about whether that suspension will be to a new named day or open-ended—sine die—so that the Secretary of State can act whenever he feels like it? That absolutely vital element was left out of the Secretary of State's comments, and it is impossible without it to evaluate his proposal.
	Sadly, once again in Northern Ireland, the Government have shown that they do not take their own constitutional rules seriously and that devolution does not benefit from any objective constitutional framework, but is merely the plaything of the Government; whenever they feel like it, they can simply intervene from on high to change the rules to delay elections or to do as they please. Is not that deeply damaging to the credibility of devolution and to the institutions in Northern Ireland?
	What the Government have done is to say that democracy is suspended for everyone in Northern Ireland—for all parties and all citizens—just because one party has misbehaved or has not fulfilled its obligations under the Belfast agreement. That is one more deplorable example—we have had them before, including at the time of suspension—of the innocent being penalised, not just the guilty. Is not that a perverse signal to send at a time when we are trying to build a new peaceful and democratic Northern Ireland?
	Will the Secretary of State agree that again, for the umpteenth time, what appeared to be a set deadline in the peace process has been opportunistically shifted by the Government at the last minute, after their characteristic period of several days' shilly-shallying and vacillation, and as they see fit? That is deplorable. No peace process can be successful unless deadlines are taken seriously, yet once again, the Government have shown that they are not to be taken seriously. Is not that very damaging to the peace process?
	The Secretary of State said that he thought that it was impossible to conclude an agreement during an election campaign. However, the Government foresaw exactly the circumstances that would arise when they came here in March, after Hillsborough, and said that it was sensible to set a date of 29 May and that the negotiations with all the parties to consummate the Hillsborough agreement would take place against that background. Once more, there has been a U-turn by the Government. Is that not a self-condemnation by the Government—an admission that as recently as March their judgment was clearly wrong? Might not one factor that inhibits parties from going the last mile in any negotiation on such a peace process be an impending election? There are two reasons for that: first, the need to appear tough to one's own electorate before the election makes it difficult to make concessions of any kind; and secondly, parties may feel that they need to know what the concatenation of political forces in the Assembly will be in a few weeks' time before they can say, "Right, we will put all our cards on the table." The fact that a different combination of political forces may emerge after an election inclines people to keep some of their cards in their pockets. The uncertainty surrounding an election having not happened is an inhibiting factor in concluding the process. It is therefore doubly regrettable that the uncertainty has now been continued and prolonged, perhaps indefinitely—sine die—although we do not know that, because the Secretary of State has not told us.
	What indication does the Secretary of State have that there will be any difference at all in the circumstances if the election is postponed to later this summer, to the autumn or to any other time? What circumstances does he expect to change in the meantime that give him some hope that there will not be a third, fourth or fifth retrospective postponement?
	The final date by which nominations for Assembly elections on 29 May had to be in was Tuesday, which means that the Secretary of State has produced complete chaos in Northern Ireland. People who want to observe the law as it currently stands, and who want to take part in a democratic election, as they are entitled to, have to get their nomination papers in by Tuesday. Do they still have to get their nomination papers in by Tuesday? Or are the Government saying, "Because we have a 200 majority in this House we can do anything—we can roll over Parliament and simply change the dates retrospectively whenever we feel like it, so don't bother to put your nomination papers in"? Which is it? Perhaps the Secretary of State will answer that, because people require guidance before Tuesday. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) cannot intervene on a question.

Quentin Davies: The candidates are entitled to an explanation before Tuesday, because they have to decide before then whether they are going to put their nomination papers in.
	Can the Secretary of State cite a single instance in the past 100 years in any democratic country where the constitutional rules for an elected assembly have been treated with such levity—such contemptuous frivolity? How can the Government expect the people of Northern Ireland to take seriously the new institutions in Northern Ireland, to which we are very committed, if they take those institutions and the rules behind them so unseriously themselves?
	Three things come out of this with their credibility very gravely damaged: first, the peace process; secondly, the institutions of devolved government, and the basis of democracy, in Northern Ireland; and thirdly, the Government themselves.

Paul Murphy: On nominations, we cannot as a Government anticipate what the House of Commons or the House of Lords will do, but it would still be sensible for parties in Northern Ireland very much to take into account my announcement that elections in Northern Ireland, if Parliament so agrees, will be postponed. I think that parties in Northern Ireland will understand that.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not think for one second that I, or the Government, wanted to have elections deferred until the autumn. It was the last thing that I wanted. What does he think that we have all been doing for the six or seven months since I became Secretary of State last October? Virtually every day of every week of every month has been taken up with trying to ensure that we have a joint declaration. What does he think that I was doing from 1997 to 1998, when I chaired the strand 1 talks in Northern Ireland that set up the institution of the Assembly? Does he not understand that the whole basis upon which the Assembly in Belfast is created is very special? He says that this would not happen in any other country, but no other country has such an Assembly. No other country has this type of agreement, which was based on a subtle and important compromise that made sure that both sides of the community—Unionist and nationalist—could sit together in an Assembly in Northern Ireland in a very special way.
	On the date of the election—I do not yet know precisely what is in the Bill; we shall see when it is published—I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we want it to be in the autumn. If he cannot understand that the whole basis of the restoration of the Assembly is the restoration of trust between the Unionist and nationalist Members of the Legislative Assembly, he seriously misunderstands the whole basis of the Good Friday agreement.
	I shall repeat the reasons for having to make a difficult decision. First, there is lack of clarity from the Irish Republican Army about whether there will be an end to paramilitary activity. Secondly, that means that trust and confidence has not been restored. Time and again, I have told hon. Members that we can restore the institutions only if we restore trust and confidence between parties in Northern Ireland. Clearly, that has not happened. If we went ahead and elected an Assembly, what would we have? It would be like electing a Parliament with no guarantee that we could produce a Government. That is not a stable way in which to proceed.
	We are not giving up and we shall ensure that the elections will go ahead, but later. In the meantime, we shall keep on talking. We shall try to resolve issues so that we can restore the necessary trust and confidence. The all-important point is not whether the date of the election is in autumn or spring, but that the process continues.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Minister of State for giving me a brief indication of the statement's content. It is regrettable that matters have been organised in such a way that the normal courtesies of advance notice of statements could not be observed.
	I welcome the Secretary of State's comment that the joint declaration will be published and placed in the Library. Like the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), Liberal Democrat Members regret the decision to delay the elections from 29 May. We believe that democracy delayed is democracy defeated and we cannot be party to that.
	The delay is especially regrettable because it places control of the democratic process in the hands of people to whom it is anathema. Responsibility for the delay lies fairly and squarely with Sinn Fein and the IRA. They have been asked to make a straightforward choice between violence and democracy and they have been unable to make it. Surely the time has come for the democratic process in Northern Ireland to move on. If Sinn Fein and the IRA cannot move with it, that is their choice and the people of Northern Ireland will judge them on it.
	When the Secretary of State introduced the previous legislation at the beginning of March to delay the elections until 29 May, Liberal Democrat Members said that we would support him then but that we would support no further delays. That remains our position. Like Conservative Members, we shall wait and see the contents of the Bill, but I foresee no circumstances in which we would support it.
	Will the Secretary of State clarify his response to the point that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford made about the nomination process? It should continue in the absence of legislation to the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman knows that democracy comes at a price. Many parties and individuals in Northern Ireland have already committed and incurred expenditure in the legitimate expectation that elections would proceed on 29 May. Will the Government seriously consider a mechanism for compensating those parties? The Government and the Opposition in this House take such funding for granted, but it is not easily available to parties in Northern Ireland.

Paul Murphy: I regret the postponement of elections until the autumn as much as the hon. Gentleman. I deeply regret it, as I said to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. I agree that we could not observe the normal courtesies as much as we would have liked. However, in fluid negotiations yesterday and today, I was conscious of wanting to ensure that the House of Commons was told about the announcement. I therefore had to decide whether to make an announcement this afternoon or go through the normal procedure of giving longer notice to political parties. Clearly, it is important for my colleagues and I to speak not only to the parties in Great Britain but those in Northern Ireland. I needed to speak to the leaders of those parties.
	I have little to add to my reasons for believing that the elections should be postponed until the autumn. However, the Government will certainly consider compensation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should put only one question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It should be borne in mind that we have interrupted a debate and that a fuller statement will be made when we return next week.

Andrew MacKinlay: In February, we had only one day of debate on the legislation to postpone elections. I appreciate that the matter must be tackled with dispatch, but may we have at least two days for the forthcoming Bill, because it will be more complicated than the legislation that we passed in February? For example, we should consider the 200 members of Assembly staff—the employees of Members of the Legislative Assembly—who will presumably receive redundancy notices. We must consider what happens to them in the interregnum.
	When precisely was the Social Democratic and Labour party told about the statement, bearing it in mind that other Northern Ireland business was scheduled for this afternoon?

Paul Murphy: On the final point, contacts have been made with the SDLP, but the nature of the negotiations in the past 24 hours and the fact that members of political parties in Northern Ireland are campaigning mean that one would not expect Northern Ireland Members to be able to get to the Chamber for the statement. That is why I propose to make another statement next week.

Andrew MacKinlay: There is a debate in Westminster Hall.

Paul Murphy: That is not a matter for me. I understand why Northern Ireland Members could not be present today to listen to the statement. It is therefore important to make another.
	The time allocated for the debate on the Bill is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am sure that he listened to my hon. Friend's comments.

Martin Smyth: I made the point earlier, and I want to make it plain that I received the first intimation, apart from speculation in this morning's press, of these matters at 12.15 pm through a press notice. I raised the matter on a point of order. Business questions did not start until 12.30 pm and I regret that the seamless robe of Government did not mean that the Leader of the House was apprised of matters. I appreciate that he was frank and open with us when he made his first response.
	Why could Dublin Ministers announce the business of this House before we were given information? I cannot accept the explanation of courtesy because the harsh reality is that although others were consulted, albeit orally, as an Ulster Unionist Member who is present today, I knew nothing about what was happening until I received the information from outside sources.

Paul Murphy: Whatever might have been anticipated or speculated upon elsewhere, the Government announced the postponement of elections here at 2.30 pm. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will announce it afterwards. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that negotiations have been fluid yesterday and throughout the morning. I repeat that the official announcement of the matter is to the House of Commons and by the Prime Minister after my statement.

Stephen Pound: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is overcome by the extent and warmth of the constructive comments of the official Opposition. They demonstrate the extent of their commitment to the Good Friday agreement.
	In many parts of these islands, today's statement will be perceived as a victory for the Unionist veto. May I urge my right hon. Friend to resist the temptation to set a date in autumn? We want progress, not programmes and trust, not timetables.

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is right about the trust that is required to establish the institutions.
	The Opposition referred to the Sinn Fein veto, whereas my hon. Friend referred to a Unionist veto. Everyone has a veto in the Northern Ireland peace process. We must establish trust and confidence between parties so that we can go ahead with an institution that has the confidence of the Unionist and nationalist community.

Ian Paisley: Why does not the Secretary of State confess today that he was not going to come to the House to make a statement at this time but was going to make one next week? The reason why we are here today is that the Minister for Justice of a foreign country announced to journalists in Dublin that the election was to be suspended. That is why the Secretary of State has come here in such great haste.
	Can the Secretary of State confirm that legally at this moment the elections are on? He needs to change the law to bring about what he is about to do. According to legal advice that I have and according to the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland, the nominations tomorrow are on. If a Member who has spent considerable funds on preparing for the election—for example, on printing—is to make a legal claim to obtain reimbursement of those funds, he must prove that he has been a candidate, so all my party members will be nominating tomorrow and all the party members of many other parties will be nominating tomorrow. They can do nothing else. We have to keep to the law and the law says, "You have no claim unless you have been nominated." What will the Secretary of State do about that?
	I very much regret that it is Members who do not represent Northern Ireland at all who have time to put their case in this House, whereas we have no time.
	I will sit down on this point: it is an appalling thing that IRA-Sinn Fein have been talking to the Government right up to this morning when the majority Unionist population have been treated like lepers and their leadership has not been consulted in any way. The reason why you do not want an election is that you do not like what is going to happen as a result of that election. That is the difficulty you have.

Paul Murphy: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman believes that the statement came as a result of what other people have said, because that is not the case. I decided earlier today to ensure that there would be a more substantial statement next week, precisely so that Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies would be able to come to the House to make their point. I am conscious that, for all sorts of reasons, there are Members elsewhere today and the House is not full, so it is important that that opportunity is given to Members, particularly from Northern Ireland, but I thought that it was important that the decision to postpone the elections should be made and that the decision should be announced in the House of Commons as soon as possible, despite the difficulties that I have just outlined.
	On nominations, it is for the parties themselves to make up their minds. Technically, of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that, at the moment, as the law stands, elections are to be held, but I am announcing today that the Government intend to introduce a Bill to change that.

David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend make a security assessment? Now that we have a further interregnum, would it be sensible to look at the implications for the British Army in Northern Ireland and ensure that there is an understanding that there will be no further withdrawals? Clearly, we must have at the forefront of our thinking the need to achieve stability in this very difficult situation.

Paul Murphy: I will, of course, keep the security situation under constant review—as we always do—on the advice of the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.

Michael Mates: Amid all the recriminations and expressions of horror, perhaps some of them more synthetic than real, can we at least all agree on one thing—that the blame for this lies fairly and squarely with Sinn Fein-IRA, who have procrastinated, used weasel words and brought this thing to the brink, hoping that the Government would bend over and meet their demands? As difficult as the Secretary of State's decision was and as regretful as we all recognise he is, he has made the right decision, because an election within a vacuum is not good for democracy.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. He is right that trust is ultimately what is important. That could not be restored, bearing in mind the lack of clarity over that final answer on paramilitary activity. I hope that, over the months ahead in the talks, we can get that clarity.

Andrew Hunter: Will the Secretary of State reflect more deeply that it is entirely inappropriate for the democratic process of Northern Ireland to be suspended because unreconstructed terrorists remain precisely that, and that it would be appropriate for devolved government to be restored, conducted by those Unionist and nationalist parties that are exclusively committed to the principles and practice of democracy?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Assembly in Belfast is specifically constituted on the basis of what was agreed by vote among the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A referendum established that particular type of Assembly, which meant that there had to be Unionists and nationalists agreeing on how to go forward. That is why the Government have decided to postpone.

Brian Mawhinney: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while this entirely predictable and indeed predicted U-turn reflects badly on the political processes in Northern Ireland, he has made the right decision? May I ask him to reflect on the Bill that he will introduce? Notwithstanding his office and his addressing the House of Commons, there is an election at the end of May until the law of the land is changed. Will he ensure that under that Bill he has power to recompense all the legitimate political parties in Northern Ireland for the legitimate expenses that they incur until the law of the land is changed? Incidentally, as a right hon. Member of the House, I do not appreciate learning from an Irish Minister about the intentions of the Government.

Paul Murphy: I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I am grateful for his support and that of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) for the decision, although all of us regret it. Both of them were Northern Ireland Ministers—indeed the right hon. Gentleman is from Northern Ireland—and understand the difficulties that we face in the peace process. As I said earlier, I will, of course, look at the question of compensation.

Andrew Robathan: I know that the Secretary of State has been striving hard for a just peace in Northern Ireland but we now know that a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to a known terrorist, Martin McGuinness, as "babe", which surely is an insult to the families of constituents who have been murdered by the IRA. Martin McGuinness was on the Provisional IRA council with the blood of British soldiers on his hands. When will the Government abide by their own Belfast agreement? When will they abide by their own deadlines and not give way to the IRA? Cancelling the elections is giving way to the IRA. When will the Government fulfil the Prime Minister's promise to take the weapons and violence out of politics in Northern Ireland?

Paul Murphy: On the first point, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear the other day that it is not appropriate for Ministers to comment on matters of national security. All I will say is that Mo Mowlam used that phrase to many people, including me.
	On the other matter, the hon. Gentleman will know that I disagree with him. Everything that I have said so far means that I disagree with him, although not on the issues that we face—he and I agree how important it is for the IRA to discontinue any sort of paramilitary activity. As I said earlier, I believe that the best way to solve this problem, particularly in the climate of an election, is to postpone the elections and to sit down and talk through the issues so that we can get better clarity on the very points about which he is concerned.

Hugo Swire: Despite the Government's protestations to the contrary, we are all aware of the difficulties with the electoral register in Northern Ireland. If legislation is to be enacted within the next few weeks or days to postpone the elections, will the Secretary of State make it his business to have an urgent meeting with the electoral commissioner and the Electoral Commission and use this intervening period to keep the electoral register open, in order to spend the time clearing up some of the backlog and mess, so that the elections, when they come, will be fairer than they would have been had they been held at the time when they were intended to be held before this morning's announcement was made?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He has my assurance that we will meet the chief electoral officer and the Electoral Commission to discuss any difficulties that arise not only from the postponement of the elections but with regard to the register, to which he rightly referred.

Michael Mates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise briefly a point of order of which I would have liked to give you notice a little earlier. As some hon. Members may know, and as you certainly will know, the debate that was due to take place in Westminster Hall on the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland had to be suspended because of the urgent statement on Northern Ireland. I do not argue with that decision, which was quite right. However, the House should surely have a better mechanism to deal with such events. Could you put in train ways of putting that right? Madam Deputy Speaker had no jurisdiction to suspend that debate until the statement had finished. It would have been sensible and rational if, 40 minutes later, we could have conducted our Westminster Hall debate, which, alas, has had to be put off for another day. Parliament has lost a day's debate in Westminster Hall, so I ask you to consider whether a better way could be found of conducting our business.

Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but I alone do not have the powers to change the rules. Those who do have the power will have heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say and heard that I sympathise with his case.

Broadband

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Brian White: I welcome the debate, which is important, as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said. I am the chairman of an organisation that brings together parliamentarians, civil servants, Ministers, the industry and the European informatics group, of which some hon. Members are members. The debate is timely. As an officer of the all-party internet group, I have had discussions with some internet companies, which should be useful for the debate. In common with other hon. Members, I shall also raise some constituency issues.
	Milton Keynes is unusual because most of the rural areas are better off than the urban area. A few weeks ago, I attended the launch of the Olney exchange to enable broadband. In the city of Milton Keynes, 80,000 houses have cable and every exchange is enabled, but many people are unable to receive broadband because of technical difficulties surrounding the installation of cable. To be fair to British Telecom, it is aware of the technical problem and is trying to tackle it. The 80,000 households cannot receive broadband on the cable network because the cable is analogue. NTL is trying to deal with the problem, but views it in financial terms. The city is quite industrialised and many people want broadband, but they are frustrated because they cannot gain access. The problem still exists even where exchanges are enabled.
	I know that the Minister is aware of the problem—I have browbeaten him on several occasions about it—but I want to be fair to NTL and BT, which are trying to deal with it. NTL is carrying out a pilot with the local authority to introduce wireless technology; and this summer it will launch another pilot to get 3,000 households online. The company will use its 10 GHz licence and, with the auction for 3.5 GHz licences coming up this month, it will improve the position further. The regional development agency, local authorities and Government agencies are aware of the problem, but we must ensure that they all work together to tackle problems that go beyond merely getting enough people to register for the exchange.

Lawrie Quinn: Does not the commercial impediment—the fact that the market could slow down and capital investment be unavailable to the providers—require the sort of stimulus that RDAs have been able to provide through the £30 million grant? Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be sustained in the long term to ensure that the roll-out is more effective and consistent?

Brian White: I am going to return to the issue of the investment climate for broadband, but my hon. Friend is right about the role that the public sector has to play. The Minister has already spoken about the role of public service aggregation and other such contracts to stimulate the growth of broadband. He also spoke about his experiences in Canada and the MUSH economy, which stands for municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals. He spoke about how Canada used investment in those public services to drive the broadband agenda forward. I commend that as an example of good practice.
	When we speak about broadband, we often assume that it is a good thing. However, in the rush to talk about access, we can forget that the case for broadband has to be made. A debate like today's should not pass without stressing that the UK should make the case for broadband to its citizens. As the hon. Member for Blaby pointed out, we are one of the highest narrow band users in the world because of the perceived need to provide the services for it, but we must learn the lessons from it. When narrow band grew, it did so when ISPs provided unmetered online access. We must ensure that broadband learns the same lesson in order to advance.

Andrew Robathan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was somewhat cut short in my speech. I agree with him about the need for education—it is not entirely a Government responsibility—so that people understand the benefits of broadband. People need to know more about broadband, and this debate may help them.

Brian White: I agree. UK Online provides a key example of how to educate people about access to Government services and to e-commerce. I give credit to the Department of Trade and Industry for promoting e-commerce, which is critical to progress. Recent research by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, for example, showed a positive link between information and communications technology use and attainment in education.
	I hope that the Minister will reflect on one issue of concern—only about half of computer science graduates are moving into ICT companies, with the rest moving on to companies that use it. The Minister might like to pass the point on to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills. We need to encourage graduates to work in ICT because it is an area where we have skills shortages.
	My hon. Friends spoke about initiatives for schools—for example, providing money to fund a certain number of megabytes for them. Such facilities are important. As I said in an intervention, we must ensure that we avoid the silo mentality. Several barriers—such as perceived regulatory problems with data protection—have to be addressed. When the Minister chairs the Cabinet Sub-Committee, I hope that he will deal with that and ensure that the issue of the perception of barriers is addressed, as well as the removal of the barriers themselves.
	Earlier this year I had the pleasure of sitting on the Committee considering the Communications Bill. It has been suggested that the Committee did not consider all its clauses, but most of those that were not debated did not have any amendments tabled to them. The Bill was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, so I reject any suggestion that it was not properly scrutinised. The key point of the Bill is to set up a converged regulator, but there is little point in that unless we have a converged industry to regulate.
	The Minister knows of my concern that convergence largely depends on broadband and that although we currently have technological convergence, we have not yet achieved social usage convergence. One of the best ways of achieving that is through greater take-up of broadband. I urge the Minister to consider not only infrastructural issues, but content and how people use the internet. Everyone talks about exclusion as though it were a geographical issue alone, but it is also about how and where people use services and how they use them to buy goods and services.
	When I started out as a programmer in the 1970s, there were many blind programmers because the technology allowed them to use it. The introduction of Windows and the like practically wiped out blind programmers from the industry. It has taken a long time to get disabled people working again in the industry because the things that allowed them to work in the industry were not addressed when the new technologies were brought in. A key skills issue is making sure that new technologies are not just introduced for the few, and that issues surrounding disability and exclusion are tackled.
	The Minister covered the point about why we should not simply rely on BT. The hon. Member for Blaby said that Germany was ahead of us. I hope he realises how Deutsche Telekom has got there. The East of England Development Agency has given £3.4 million to Norfolk for a high-capacity broadband network. It is supposed to be along the lines of those of European cities such as Antwerp and Stockholm. Some people have expressed concern that making such a sum available to create those networks is breaking EU state aid rules. Whether that is the case or not, there is a perception that some initiatives are not going forward for that reason. The Government need to clarify what the rules are to ensure that, where people are taking innovations forward, best practice is spread round the country. In particular, regional development agencies need transparency about what kind of investments they can and cannot make.

Henry Bellingham: Obviously, my constituency is affected by the EEDA grant. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the grant should have been awarded only if it had been available to other counties and on a completely even basis? I did not quite get the drift of his remarks.

Brian White: My point was that some people say that the grant should not have been awarded because it broke the state aid rules. I do not accept that. I am saying to the Minister that we need clarity about what constitutes state aid for innovations and pilot projects. We need to ensure that good practice is spread across the country.

Lawrie Quinn: In Finland, the whole community grasped the need to invest in the nation's infrastructure and included broadband and the internet in that infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend agree that we in this country need to take that cultural step to adjust to these new opportunities and perhaps to get over the hurdle of the state aid argument?

Brian White: I have a Finnish wife and I would entirely agree with that. Stockholm city council created a company that it wholly owned. The company raised capital on the stock exchange, cabled the whole of Stockholm, opened it up to competition with different companies and within 18 months repaid the loan capital. It now gives the citizens of Stockholm a rebate. Such an initiative is not allowed in the United Kingdom because Treasury rules prohibit local authorities from following such a route. We need to address that sort of barrier if we are to move forward with broadband.
	Many people compare us with South Korea and ask why, since South Korea puts billions of dollars into broadband, we cannot do the same. There are a lot of tower blocks and flats in South Korea and broadband is used as a way of social inclusivity and of dealing with the security of housing. In this country we have much more individual housing, but there are lessons to be learned from South Korea for our tower blocks and housing estates.
	It is important that we do not focus on ADSL alone but recognise that broadband is far more than the provision of ADSL and the other technologies. The hon. Member for Blaby asked what wi-fi was. Broadband wireless has the opportunity to plug some of the gaps that are causing some problems, certainly in my city. That is an exciting opportunity. If the forthcoming auction goes well, it will deliver some of the investment that is needed. Most people who saw television over Easter cannot fail to have noticed the adverts for 3G. It is an important service that is coming online and will tackle many of the mobile broadband issues. It is important to recognise that.
	With the introduction of wireless broadband there are real issues concerning access points and gateways—a matter on which the Minister has already touched. The United States Senate and the Welsh Assembly have already looked at some of these issues. It is important for the Minister to consider providing gateways into rural areas. The issue is not so much about the provision of wireless broadband, as about the gateways that are causing barriers. That applies to satellite broadcasting too. We must not get hooked on whatever the panacea of the moment is. We did that with local loop unbundling and we have done it with a number of things in the past. It is important to be technology neutral. If we are to achieve the Government's targets it is important that we do not put all our eggs in one basket, but promote the principles of broadband rather than any particular technology.
	The Government are to be commended on their targets. The Public Administration Committee has just taken evidence on targets, and I recommend its forthcoming report to the House. Two points emerge from the evidence. First, if the private sector achieves 80 per cent. of its targets, it is considered to have done well. If the public sector fails to achieve 20 per cent. of its targets, it is considered to have failed. We must recognise that if we set challenging targets, there will be failures and that that is not a bad thing but a way of moving forward. Secondly, a good target transforms the way in which people operate. The Government's target has transformed the way in which Departments operate. Simply to keep to the target that all online services should be online by 2005 is not necessarily the best way forward. We need to look at the transformation of services and to ensure that the vast majority of people can access services differently. A recent report by Cisco stated that where investment is linked to changes in business methods, there is a much bigger productivity improvement than if only one of those two things happens.
	It is important that we recognise the work of the e-envoy, and I pay tribute to Andrew Pinder and the Office of Government Commerce for their efforts to implement the work of the broadband stakeholder group. I look to the Minister to reinforce that work, spreading best practice in both Whitehall and industry. We should shift the policy focus from the promotion of e-commerce—although that is important—to a more holistic consideration of e-business as a whole, which includes high internet use.
	In the European Union, internet use has increased from about 67 per cent. to 79 per cent., but the sales of actual services fell during 2001–02. We need to realise that quality matters, too. About a quarter of small businesses are still on dial-up analogue services, while the majority of large companies use systems of 2 megabytes or more, or four times the speed of ADSL. Simply relating broadband to ADSL will not raise us to where we need to be. That imbalance exists throughout the EU, so we need to adopt an EU focus.
	We need to ensure that we promote regional clusters. My city, Milton Keynes, is in the middle of the Oxford-Cambridge technology arc, but such clusters need support from the whole Government, not merely from the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Trade and Industry. Where the clusters cross RDA boundaries, cross-regional working should be enhanced.
	We need to tackle the skills shortage. The Government have set up several initiatives but they have tended to remain as pilots. We have not been especially good at transforming pilots into mainstream funding. The Minister is aware of some of the problems, but I emphasise that we need to learn lessons from the pilots and find ways of transforming them into mainstream funding, especially as regards skills.

Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work being carried out by the British Computer Society, especially on a project called the European computer driving licence, and by the Communication Workers Union, the telecommunications trade union, has been instrumental outside Government Those groups played a key part in the stakeholder group in developing the training options to which my hon. Friend alludes?

Brian White: My hon. Friend underpins my point: many good things are happening, but we need to ensure that they are joined up. That is one of the points identified by the stakeholder group, and we need to work on that.
	The skills shortage affects not only people providing broadband services but also the people who access such services. Broadband is about much more than merely getting people online more quickly: it is about giving them the confidence and ability to make innovations and to open up new possibilities.
	There are several problems that need to be addressed. The Minister will be aware that spam can deter people from using the internet. We need to make progress on work to provide solutions to that problem. He will also be aware of the work of the Internet Watch Foundation, highlighted in its recent report, to tackle pornography, especially child pornography. That is a good example of self-regulation, but in order for self-regulation to work it needs to be properly funded. The IWF pointed out that, in the past, a reliance on too few funders caused real problems. I urge the whole ICT industry, especially the new third-generation mobile companies, to fund the IWF and to recognise that self-regulation is not cost-free.
	At present, there is a problem with the rolling out of broadband across the UK owing to BT's dominant position in the wholesale market. There are two BT products on the market: BT IPStream and BT DataStream. Tiscali, a company in my constituency, and other companies, such as Energis, have drawn attention to the wholesale price impact of BT's broadband pricing. BT is reducing the price of IPStream so that it can promote BT Openworld and others—internet service providers—to those who actually use the BT internet, but it is not reducing the price of DataStream, which network suppliers use. Telecoms companies that use their own network and therefore use the DataStream product, however, pay a higher price. To me, that is unfair competition. The matter has been raised with Oftel, but the procedures by which it is being resolved are far too slow. Again, one of the issues that was raised when we discussed Ofcom was the speed with which such regulatory issues are resolved. Those kinds of barriers cause real problems. When Ofcom comes into existence, we need to ensure that its speed of reaction is far faster than Oftel's. The broadband stakeholder group has told the Government that it wants the UK to be the world leader in this field by 2005, but it is also necessary to get the investment climate right. That means removing some of the regulatory barriers to access.
	It has been suggested that the dotcom boom has meant the end of investment in ICT. That is not the case, however. If we look at the history, we have been in this position before. In the 1880s, there was a railway boom, followed by a crash, followed by stronger railway companies coming out of it. In the 1920s, there were thousands of car manufacturers, there was a boom and a crash, and very strong car manufacturers came out of it. The same thing is happening to dotcoms: there was a boom, then a crash, and the companies that survived that crash are coming out of it far stronger and far more effective than when they started. In relation to the City and getting the investment climate right, there was an over-expectation during the dotcom boom about profits. The Government have a role to play in ensuring that analysts have the right kind of information on which to base their investment decisions. Instead of going from glut to famine, we should have been having sustained investment.
	Lastly, EU legislation has a key role to play. At the last count, there were about 50 EU initiatives that affected broadband issues. If we are to exploit broadband properly in this country, we need to make sure that those initiatives are subject to proper debate so that we can influence them at an early stage, rather than it being too late to do so, as has tended to happen in the past. A number of content issues are also emerging, such as intellectual property rights—relating to both software and content—and I do not think that today is the right day to have that debate. There are open source and e-crime issues, however, and an EU consultation is currently taking place on intellectual property rights. At the moment, the Minister is rightly concentrating on infrastructure and regulatory issues. We need to ensure, however, that the policy debate moves forward on to content. One of the dangers is that this place moves at such a slow pace that we will find ourselves behind the times again.
	There will be calls for regulation of the internet as broadband develops, and I hope that the Minister will resist them. We need to ensure however, that the kind of initiatives suggested by the broadband stakeholder group—I welcome the Government's positive response to its recommendations last November—are taken on board and dealt with quickly. Its work highlights the need for still more work to be done by the Government, while recognising what has already been done. Some barriers still exist—I have touched on the regulatory and financial ones.
	We also need to learn lessons from other countries, and I am pleased that the Minister has taken on board the lessons from Canada and Finland. There are still vested interests that hold things back, however, whether in the public services or in industry. We must also tackle those. I am optimistic about this debate, and I know that the Minister is held in quite high regard in the industry. Addressing some of the issues that I have raised, however, will be key to taking forward broadband. Broadband has the potential to transform our lives, and while no one will go out and sell it on the doorstep, it will have a far more profound effect on our quality of life in the future than some of the other issues that we spend our time talking about in this place.

Vincent Cable: I am deputising for my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who is infinitely better informed about these issues than I am. However, I recognise that he has some competition, not least from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I also know that the Minister is highly authoritative, and even the Conservative spokesman showed an impressive grasp of the jargon. I cannot hope to compete with that.
	I face an additional disadvantage in that I represent an urban constituency in south-west London where broadband is not an issue and never has been. The pavements were dug up 10 years ago for the cable companies, and people have access to the system. My constituency is relatively high income, with a relatively highly educated population. Broadband is widely used and, indeed, taken for granted.
	If we have a digital divide, it is not a geographical one; it is more based on age. A serious problem is emerging in terms of an elderly population who have no access to information technology and who are increasingly bypassed by many information flows. One of my minor accomplishments as an MP was to persuade the local adult education college to lift the age bar that it used to impose on people doing IT courses to prevent people of over 65 from learning about the subject. However, the age barrier remains a problem.
	I was not even aware of geographical barriers to broadband until I acquired a new partner, who is a farmer in the New Forest. She is a logical and competent person but, when I asked her to download some photographs on her farm, she was unable to do so because she is outside the 3 km limit on the pipes. Access is an issue even in the relatively affluent areas where people cannot get access to fast internet connections.
	As I am not an expert on the subject, I shall ask three elementary questions. The first is about what broadband means in terms of the economic implications for business competitiveness. The second is about the spread of geographical access. What is the best model to follow when encouraging that? The third is about the Government's £1 billion pound initiative, and whether that is the appropriate way forward.
	On the first point, I had what I feared might be a slightly dim question. Why should we take it for granted that broadband is a good thing? However, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has already posed that question. It seems self-evident that a new technology that enables information to flow more quickly and easily will stimulate the economy. However, I was struck by a recent comment from the director general of the Federation of the Electronics Industry, who made the challenging assertion that he had yet to see a single major viable business use for broadband. He was implying that broadband has many interesting applications domestically and in big companies, but he challenged us to come up with concrete examples of how it would materially affect economic performance. I do not know what the answer to his question is; I assume that he is wrong, but that is not self-evident.

James Paice: May I suggest that the answer lies in the long-established statement that time is money?

Vincent Cable: That is a good common-sense answer. However, that probably manifests itself not so much in the overall performance of the economy, but in where and how we work. A good example was described to me. For example, architects increasingly work from home or in small communities. They do not need to drive into an urban practice, because they can download complicated charts and maps. Designers can do the same. Time is money, and many professions and many creative businesses can operate from home. That is changing the geographical pattern in which economic activity takes place. One of the consequences is that communities—particularly rural communities—that do not have access to broadband miss out on that kind of self-employment and small business.
	It is almost self-evidently true that broadband is economically beneficial, but we need a sensible benchmark as to how the United Kingdom is performing. The Minister said that he would come forward with figures in a few weeks, but those that I have seen are bewilderingly contradictory and lacking in meaning. Perhaps he can help us to interpret them. When I researched the debate, I discovered that Reed Electronics Research argues that the continental European model is much better than ours because 10 per cent. of households access broadband compared with 6 per cent. here. However, IDC Consulting argues that penetration in continental Europe is only 4 per cent., which shows that there are vast disparities in the information.
	I appreciate that the concept is difficult to measure because broadband is a process rather than an end point and employs many different technologies. However, surely it is possible to decide on a common denominator against which national performance could be measured so that we would know whether we were ahead of the game or behind it. The Minister started his speech by saying that we got into broadband rather late, but it would be useful to know our exact performance. I understood that the United States, which we usually expect to be at the head of information technology matters, has a broadband domestic penetration of about 4 per cent., which is a lower proportion than that of the UK. I would be interested to know whether that is the case.
	My second set of questions is about how we may widen access and deal with the problem of areas, and especially rural areas, that are excluded. I would like to establish that we are talking about the same set of data. Figures from British Telecom show that 1.8 million households use broadband. The cable provider NTL quotes a figure of 6 per cent. of households—I assume that the figures are the same. About 11.4 million households have internet access.
	Two distinct problems tend to be rolled into one, although they might be related in many ways. First, significant numbers of households do not yet have internet access and, secondly, a number of internet-owning households do not have broadband. I was struck by an Office for National Statistics survey that showed that more than half non-owning households had no intention of acquiring internet access under any circumstances. We are heading toward an environment in which the number of people who own personal computers and access the internet with even relatively simple technology will plateau and a significant proportion of the population will be excluded from internet access due to reasons of choice and age.
	I want to deal with those who have access to the internet, but want faster broadband connections. Roughly 70 per cent. of those people may access faster broadband connections, mainly because they live in urban communities that have cable. However, problems exist even in those areas. My colleagues met a delegation from the cable company just a few weeks ago and it pointed out that many elements of the Government's regulations on street works, such as the charging system and the procedure for restoration work, are causing many problems for cable companies, albeit unintentionally. Have the Government given any thought to that problem given that we have taken it for granted that there is not a serious problem of urban cable access?
	Five per cent. of households that access the internet are in remote areas and will always find it difficult to access broadband; my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) speaks eloquently on that subject. A further 5 per cent. are in the same position as my partner because they live in areas such as the New Forest which are such a distance from the exchange that they cannot access broadband. The remaining 20 per cent. are in the trigger point because new technological applications and a stimulation of demand might bring them within the system. What is the best mechanism to assist the diffusion of broadband to those households, which are mainly in rural areas?
	The Minister described the British model, and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) endorsed it. It is essentially based on competition, and that is right because there are many competing companies and there has been minimum use of Government subsidy, whereas in France and Japan a massive amount of Government money has been thrown at the problem. If private sector providers will implement broadband, there is no reason why the Government should subsidise it.
	Although the £30 million that the Government allocated is relatively small and not enormously controversial, it raises legitimate questions. There are both good and bad models for the use of funding by regional development agencies. An oft-cited good model is the Cornish case. The RDA for Cornwall, working in conjunction with local communities, let BT provide and pay for the normal connection charges. The RDA then provided an additional subsidy for those connections that were above the normal cost—so the access has been enlarged and BT is making a contribution.
	The contrasting example, put to me by a cable company that may have its own interest in being critical, is the Scottish case. It has been argued that such a use of public money is inappropriate and simply reinforces the use of the ADSL system when alternative technologies could have been used. In addition, it was argued that the process was opaque. I do not know whether the Minister will volunteer comments about the different experiences of the RDAs, but they seem to vary.
	The Government's billion-pound plan could be ambitious. Listening to the Minister, it seems that they have two, potentially conflicting, objectives. The first is to improve public services. We can hardly quarrel with that. The second is to stimulate demand for the industry. People in the industry have explained to me that in the attempt to aggregate demand, decisions are being delayed. Public sector providers might make decisions now if left to their own devices, but are being held back by the need to aggregate and plan those decisions. I do not know whether that criticism is valid.
	Although the Government described their programme in broad terms, they are trying to achieve two different things, which need to be analysed in a slightly different way. They are trying to improve public services, and I can think of obvious practical examples of how that could be achieved. If a doctor's surgery can switch an x-ray to hospital through a broadband-connected machine and receive it back again, that is infinitely better than shipping it around by hand. One can appreciate how the health service could work much better with the direct application of such skills.
	I have a reservation. The public sector in general has been extraordinarily bad at integrating IT systems. We have heard about scandalous cases of misuse of funds and bad management, and there was simply a primitive use of technology. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police are the most notorious examples of that. What assurances do we have that the public services have learned from those experiences so that they will be better equipped to handle the new generation of what I assume will be more sophisticated technology?

Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that private sector companies have experienced similar problems, but they do not get the same publicity? The problem is not necessarily with the public sector, but with the way in which IT companies relate to their customers.

Vincent Cable: I am sure that the problem is often one of large organisations rather than necessarily one of government. I worked in one of the largest international oil companies and remember the grief caused by attempts to generate new IT systems there. It is not an ideological point; there have been major problems. I wonder how the NHS, which is the biggest public sector unit in, I think, the world, will manage to aggregate its needs efficiently.

Andrew Robathan: I apologise for missing the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech when I was having lunch. He is making an extremely good point. In response to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), may I add that the difference between a large oil company, such as Shell, losing a lot of money on IT and a public sector organisation is that the taxpayer does not have to pay for that company's losses?

Vincent Cable: The public sector does not have to pay either if it structures its deals properly. That is probably one of the lessons that we have to learn.
	The other aspect of the billion-pound programme is not so much making public services work better as providing better information flows to the public and helping people to communicate, for example, by paying their taxes and getting passports on the internet. That is already happening, often in surprising ways. I have discovered in the past few months that because my local council is putting its unitary development plan and all its planning applications on the internet so that local people can access them—if they have broadband, they can get all the maps—between 500 and 1,000 people have been turning up to public meetings that I have organised to discuss fairly modest issues such as the use of a public open space. They have downloaded the maps and they can see how a proposal will affect their homes and their areas, so they are massively engaged.
	There is a problem with that, however. Planning is a relatively wired-up area, so the council has got used to notifying the public of planning decisions through the local online service. Most people are aware of that and make their objections, but the information flows are completely bypassing elderly people and others who do not have access. Although a great deal is happening, and most of it is beneficial and efficient, what will happen to ensure that we provide public sector information to that residual part of the population—the elderly, those on relatively low incomes and the isolated—who do not have broadband or, indeed, any internet provision?
	There was a proposal, which the Minister will know about—indeed, he may be a little embarrassed about it—to make sub-post offices the locus for bringing together all those information flows. I believe that the Government have retained the idea that post offices will, like a GP service, provide generic advice, but the technology aspect has been lost. If post offices are not to be the focal point, where is that point to be? If I am a newcomer to an area, whether it is the New Forest, Shetland or Twickenham, and I do not have broadband, cannot afford it and do not know how to operate it, I will want to go somewhere to get information about working with the Inland Revenue or understanding my local development plan and planning applications. Where would I go? Where is the public resource—the central point at which a local authority would bring all that information together?

John Maples: We have listened to a series of speeches by people who obviously know what they are talking about, and I hope that the last two speakers will forgive me if I do not follow them down the routes that they took, interesting though those were. This is not my specialist subject, as will rapidly become apparent, but I have a problem, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some answers when he winds up the debate.
	I want to concentrate on the problem in rural areas, which have 25 per cent. of the population and produce 30 per cent. of GDP. Only about a quarter of BT's exchanges have been upgraded to operate ADSL, and depending on what figures one uses, between 10 and 20 per cent. of the rural population have access to broadband. I want to confine the problem further—to business in rural areas. I am not desperately concerned about whether individuals have access to broadband in their homes, although I suppose that it would enable my children to stream even more unsuitable videos to themselves when I do not know that they are doing it. We manage to live in my village without Channel 5 and I do not hear a huge number of complaints about that. However, I am concerned about business and the rural economy.
	Rightly, part of the Government's strategy for rural areas, and that of the previous Conservative Government, was to encourage diversification and to encourage businesses to locate themselves, or to stay, in rural areas. Businesses have been encouraged to convert old farm buildings, for example, and there are many of those in my constituency. If all those people have to relocate to a large town to get a service that they need, we will have more problems in the towns with transport, traffic congestion and pollution, costs that the Government will have to pay, one way or another, because those costs tend to get externalised.
	If we are serious about business staying in rural areas it has to be able to be competitive. For many businesses, access to broadband is part of that competitiveness and the foundation of productivity. If an architect's practice, to use the example given by another hon. Member, or another business that does a great deal of work on the internet, could not get broadband, while its competitors in the nearest big town could, that would be a serious problem, and it would lead to migration to the towns.
	Despite being called Stratford-on-Avon, my constituency is about 500 square miles of rural Warwickshire. Stratford is the only exchange that is broadband-enabled. Two others, in Southam and Alcester, will be enabled this month, and trigger levels have been set for two more, at Studley and Wellesbourne. I like to think that we had some role in persuading BT to publish those targets and in getting people to sign up, resulting in two of the exchanges I mentioned being enabled. I hope that the other two will be as well. No trigger levels have been set for three other major exchanges in my area, and many small exchanges are not even on the list for getting a trigger level in the next few weeks or months.
	I urge the Minister to persuade BT to publish trigger levels, or even to insist that it do so, so that we know what is needed in an area to make the exercise economic for BT; then, we will know in which areas broadband will never be economic. I realise that BT faces problems—if the company is to act voluntarily provision has to be economically sensible. However even if all the exchanges for which trigger levels have been published are enabled, many rural areas will still not have access to broadband, either because they are too remote, or because enabling their exchanges will never be viable—I understand that for technical reasons some exchanges cannot be enabled. I am concerned about that, but I want to explore a few ideas about how the problems might be addressed and ask the Minister to comment on them.
	First, might we consider introducing a universal service obligation? Large areas of the countryside would not have telephones, electricity or even water if there were no universal service obligation. Do the Government think that that might be one way to proceed? I understand that there are problems with EU legislation and that the issue cannot be re-examined for a couple of years, but that is not an enormously long time in the context. What do the Government think would be the consequences for BT? Would it be reasonable to impose a universal service obligation on the company, or would it be hugely uneconomic, in which case we would pay for it in terms of inefficiencies in other parts of the telephone network? If so, perhaps the Government should consider helping. I am not usually at the forefront of asking the Government to spend money helping private business, or asking private business to do something that it does not want to do, but the Government will pick up the costs of failure in terms of the relocation of businesses to urban areas, creating traffic congestion and pollution problems. Therefore, the issue is not cost versus no cost, but one cost versus another.
	Secondly, BT is doing a great deal of work in this area and I have had helpful replies to correspondence with the company, which seems to be trying different technologies in different areas. However, reading what it has to say, it seems to me inevitable that not all rural areas will be reached—not all will have access to broadband. BT and my local regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands, are looking into wireless and satellite technologies. Does the Minister think that those are viable alternatives for rural businesses?
	I understand that satellite is far more expensive, at about £1,000 to initiate compared with about £30 for a regular ADSL connection, but that is not a huge sum in a business context, although an individual might see it differently. Any business that needs broadband to remain competitive will probably be able to afford the £1,000 initial charge. My concern is whether the system is viable for the type of rural business I have in mind. I understand that there is a technical problem in that either the upstream or the downstream traffic runs at half the speed of the other; is that likely to be overcome? Is wireless technology, which BT and Advantage West Midlands are exploring, likely to provide a solution?
	Thirdly, will the Minister tell me about the Government's programme to link up schools and GPs? I listened carefully to the Minister's speech and heard him say that all GPs—I was going to ask him whether all GPs or most GPs would be part of the programme—will be broadband enabled by March 2004. There are GPs in many of the villages that I represent—and, I am sure, in areas represented by many other right hon. and hon. Members. If broadband cabling, or some other system to give them broadband access, is to be installed, could it be made available to rural businesses? Giving business access might help to defray the costs—the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) talked about something similar happening in Stockholm, although that might not be an exact parallel. Perhaps the Government could charge people: if the alternative was satellite costing £1,000, it might be possible to get £750 from a rural business that wanted to hook up and thus defray part of the cost.
	Does the Minister think that that is a viable solution, or does it run into serious problems with European law on state aids? It would be a pity if it did. There are all sorts of special schemes for rural areas, such as the new rural regulation that allows common agricultural policy money to be spent on non-agricultural matters in rural areas. It seems a pity if, on one hand, we and the European Union were trying to promote business and non-farm activities in rural areas, and, on the other, we stopped for a competition reason problem one of the things that was an essential ingredient of such businesses being able to remain competitive.
	The regional development agency in my area is playing a part, with its share of the Government's £30 million, in trying out some things. I understand that it is heavily involved in the backbone network that the Government are putting in place and is undertaking some rural pilots. It says that it believes—it is a bit of a throwaway line in its memorandum—that satellite services are a practical alternative for most small and medium-sized enterprises. I am not convinced that that is so.
	I have rather more questions than solutions, but the problems to which I have referred are important to several businesses in my constituency. I think that that situation will be replicated throughout much of the country, and in geographical terms, most of it. There are many rural constituencies like mine in which there are villages and businesses that will never, realistically, have access to BT's cable broadband service, without either some Government intervention, some ability to hook up to the Government's own network, or some alternative technology.
	I read carefully the report of the Minister's speech in a Westminster Hall debate a couple of months ago, or whenever. I did not feel from that that this issue was really addressed. I realise that there are many other issues that must be higher up the Government's list of priorities with which they must deal. However, the issue before us is important to many of us. I think that any Member representing a rural constituency would say to the Minister that it is coming pretty high up in the issues that are raised in their postbag. We are receiving many letters and other forms of communication about it. People feel upset and angry. They feel that their problem is not understood. I am sure that the Government understand the issues, but I look forward to the Minister telling me how he thinks that the Government can help to solve the problem, or whether he thinks that market forces can solve it.

Robert Key: I come to this debate as a strong believer in science and the development of science through technology to improve the quality and standard of life of the people of our country and of the world. I have always been a strong supporter of communications technology. I am certainly the only person taking part in the debate who is a veteran of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. Therefore, I have a sense of déjà vu. It was back in that era, when the House was legislating for the arrival of cable television, that we were faced with a new technology that was, on the one hand, grasped with great expectation by existing companies but, on the other, was resisted until those organisations had their share of the market sewn up.
	There is a certain amount for which BT can be forgiven. It is acting in the good commercial interests of its owners and customers. However, we should not forget that it is the monopoly supplier of broadband in this country. More than 90 per cent. is in its hands. Therefore, I suspect that we need to take what it has to tell us—it has had much to tell us in its briefings during the past week—with a large pinch of rock salt. One of my purposes will be to encourage the Minister to develop his own thinking and to explain to the House the alternative methods of delivery of broadband.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has said, broadband is a real issue in our constituencies. Only 10 days ago, when I was canvassing in the local elections, I stopped to read the village notice board in Pitton, which is opposite the excellent village shop of Mr. Morrison, where I had popped in to buy a bottle of gin. Not many people realise that a bottle of gin in a village shop is often cheaper than the same brand in Tesco. However, I digress. I read on the notice board an advertisement from a frustrated local resident. He was saying, "Please sign up and register with BT because we want broadband in Pitton."
	That was not the first village. In Shrewton, Fonthill Bishop, Tisbury, Downton, Trafalgar, Whiteparish and Amesbury, people are similarly concerned about the issue. In Amesbury, a trigger threshold has been announced by BT.
	Mention has been made of the role of the development agencies. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is disappointed with the agency in his area. The south west RDA has been playing an important role in assisting the development of broadband communication.
	Whether we like it or not, RDAs are now important players and big distributors of taxpayers' money, so I want to make sure that my RDA operates effectively for my constituents. I think that it does—it has an excellent website, ConnectingSW.net, where people can find a great deal of information and discover how it is doing. They can also find out about satellite broadband delivery by connecting up to the remote area broadband inclusion trial or RABBIT system.
	I have been briefed by NTL, which is an interesting company. After the passage of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, I became the director of a cable television company, which was taken over by interests now represented by NTL, so I saw the development of the technology at first hand. NTL has pointed out that it would be a mistake to believe that only DSL technology can be used in broadband technology. If we only go down the ADSL route, we will give BT a monopoly. NTL's answer is to trial wireless broadband services in the 10 GHz band, and it is talking to development agencies about the use of that technology in rural areas. It looks forward to the forthcoming auction of band with which it hopes will be cheaper than the last round. We should not be lulled into the belief that only BT can provide the technology.
	I mentioned the exchange at Amesbury, which BT says requires a trigger level of 350 customer registrations to be viable for broadband upgrade. I was therefore interested in the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), who has conducted a campaign for broadband in his constituency, where the trigger is different. Each and every one of us should be interested in the breakeven level set by BT Wholesale, which is three years in Penrith. My right hon. Friend has asked why that extraordinary and arbitrary figure has been set as the payback period for investment. After all, Sky television took 10 years to break even. Why the magic figure of three years? Is it just good commercial sense by BT, which is telling us how long it thinks it will take to break even? It has said that it is prepared to take 50 per cent. of the risk, for which I salute it. However, that is a commercial choice—there is nothing technical or political about it. None the less, I wish my right hon. Friend success in his campaign for his constituents.
	The Minister said some important things in our excellent debate on 25 March. I pay tribute to him, as those of us who have been in the House more than five minutes recognise a Minister who knows what he is talking about. That can be a severe disadvantage, however, as it means that the Minister shares our frustration at not being able to move further and faster, given all the frustrations of government and different departmental interests, including the insurmountable obstacle at the Treasury, which has to be overcome. However, at column 55WH on 25 March, he said:
	"I do not believe that there should be a general public subsidy for broadband, which has been suggested. The key role for the public sector in broadband will not be through handing out subsidies; it will be as a customer for broadband services because public services will spend over £1 billion on broadband in the next three years."
	The Minister went on to mention the problem of backhaul infrastructure, which involves the cost of connecting a local exchange or a new wireless base station to the core network. He said:
	"The key point here is that the investment that delivers, for example, broadband to a school in a rural area in the future can also contribute to the backhaul for a local access system for the community as a whole. That is the key".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 55WH.]
	The Minister was absolutely right.
	I believe that there is an important role for wireless technology, and we have not heard nearly enough from companies interested in making an investment about its use as an appropriate technology. The Financial Services Agency was slow in sorting out its housekeeping, taking a year to get up and running. I suspect that Ofcom will spend a year sorting itself out and doing the housekeeping. It is a slow process. I hope very much that Lord Currie, who I think is an excellent choice of person to do the job, will sort out the FSA—I mean Ofcom, although I wish he would do the same for the FSA—as quickly as possible. If he can do so in less than a year, we will make some real progress.
	In rural areas, there will probably always be hybrid solutions. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke of his constituency, where the issue does not arise. It will always arise in mine. Sixty per cent. of my electors live outside Salisbury, in more than 100 villages. That is the problem. More than 3 km out from the hub, or perhaps 6 km, the trouble begins. We must have a hybrid solution.
	There is another problem that the South West of England Regional Development Agency has put to me. Whether it is deliberate or not, I do not know, but BT Wholesale and BT Retail are not talking to one another very well at present. Sometimes there is a regional management issue, and the RDA finds that if it talks to BT Wholesale, it is told to refer the problem to BT Retail. Even though there is a common manager somewhere up there in the heavens, a little game goes on, which causes delay. That is not good enough, and I hope BT will deal with the matter.

Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of network companies are experiencing equal frustration in their discussions with BT Wholesale, and that the problem will be resolved by the opening up of competition? That is a key job for Oftel initially, and Ofcom later.

Robert Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for my thesis. He is another expert in the House, so I hope the Minister will realise that what I am saying must be true, and will address the issue.
	Other possible solutions have been suggested. For example, there is a group in the south-west that wants a wireless solution, but that would involve borrowing £80 million from the European Investment Bank, and it would be a monopoly, which would crush all the competition and would therefore not be allowed. Even if one wants to attract big money, one cannot do it because that would crush the opposition and be against the rules.
	A further approach is the Atlas project in Scotland, which involved the laying of the cable between Scotland and London. Scottish Enterprise did a remarkable job there. It provided access both ways, giving Scotland a great advantage.
	Satellite is expensive. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon is once again right. For a business of a substantial size that will generate substantial income, the £1,000 charge may not seem too much, but for many small companies it is too much. For example, a small company that I know in Fonthill Bishop has been told that £900 is the charge. There is no way that a one-man business can sustain that level of investment. Other approaches have been tried, such as the regional development agencies that got together in the RABBIT project and produced a system of vouchers for first-year costs. That may be one way forward, but it is only an interim solution.
	My best information is that satellite access to broadband will only ever be about 2 per cent. of the services provided. Some people might say that that is a little low. We must address the problem of small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as one-man businesses. Ironically, many creative people, such as writers and designers, who could bring life and wealth to the rural communities are being prevented from doing so because of the bottlenecks. Sometimes they are commercial bottlenecks, and sometimes they are caused by restrictions.
	I should like the Minister to expand on a topic that he touched on in the Westminster Hall debate. I know what was running through his mind on that occasion: he had 10 minutes to wind up the debate. He could have spoken for 100 minutes and he would probably have said what he was longing to say, but he had only 10. Well, he will have more than 10 minutes this evening, so I should like him to address this issue, please.
	First, will it be possible for commercial traffic to run on public networks? That is the real issue for rural areas. There are restrictions at present, such as the BT sales contracts. If one is under contract to BT, the line cannot be sub-let, so no one can share. Therefore, having one major enterprise is no good. It is not even good for a public enterprise to have a BT contract, because it cannot sub-let to the private sector, to small firms or individuals.
	The second issue concerns Ofcom itself. It is argued that the public sector supply is achieved at a discounted price. If, having obtained the connection at a discounted price, one sub-lets to a private sector company or individual, that is once again counted as a subsidy, which is against the rules. Is that really a good enough argument for preventing the spread of access to broadband on the back of public sector investment?
	The next issue concerns the regulations and licences themselves. There is one set of regulations and licences for the public sector and another for the private sector. That, too, is a barrier to broadband access.
	Lord Currie's view will be critical in determining such issues, and I hope that the Minister will discuss them with him. My plea to him and to the Minister is to relax the regulations and allow for fertile development of the provision of broadband, particularly in rural areas where there are so many potential customers.
	It is wonderful that schools, doctors and local libraries will all be on line, but we must find a way of piggybacking on public investment. No one disputes that the public highway should be resurfaced, because it is used by the public sector, by ambulances, police cars and private vehicles. It is a common infrastructure and broadband should be similarly accessible. It should not necessarily all be provided by the public sector, but where the private sector is willing to invest, it should not be restricted in obtaining the service.
	I pay tribute to my county council of Wiltshire. It has taken a tremendous initiative in trying to access broadband for the taxpayers of Wiltshire and the Wiltshire smart place scheme has been successful.
	Despite people thinking that there cannot possibly be any technology in Cornwall, I know differently. It is not even true that just because the satellite dishes are on Goonhilly Down there is no access to the world of cable. In Cornwall, small and medium-sized enterprises take up broadband at four times the national average rate, which goes to show that with dedication and vision, the removal of regulations and will in the public and private sectors, there is no reason why there should not be a much higher penetration of broadband as an everyday way of improving the quality of life and the advantages that Britain should enjoy in the 21st century.

James Paice: The 100 minutes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred has already passed for the Minister, but I shall try to leave him a few because he clearly has many questions to answer.
	I want to follow much the same vein as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), looking at the subject as a self-confessed ignoramus, but very much aware that my constituency has major problems. My constituency surrounds Cambridge and we can literally see, on the other side of the road, the Cambridge science park enabled and active, while elsewhere knowledge-based businesses are disadvantaged. I do not like to refer to them as small businesses: they are often small because they have only a handful of people, but are major businesses in turnover and their impact on the economy.
	The case for broadband has been made well by so many hon. Members, including the Minister, that it does not need repeating. As has been said, it is simply a matter of competition. Whether or not one argues that broadband is necessary, the fact is that, if some have got it, everybody must have it to compete. That applies to businesses competing not only within the UK, but internationally.
	I want to concentrate on connectivity, as it is called in much of the documentation that I have read, and on the use of Government money—a point that I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister. I challenge him to answer this question: does he believe that the totality of public money spent on broadband is being used to the best advantage? I refer not only to the £30 million that has been mentioned several times, but to the £1 billion-plus that is being spent in the public sector on connection, of which the Prime Minister made so much in his statement in November.
	On the education sector, which has occupied much of the debate, the regional broadband consortiums with pooled local education authority funds are an important issue. In giving evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 8 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), said that it was intended that all schools would be connected terrestrially in the long term. While some of them may be using satellite services, he made it clear—admittedly, only the uncorrected evidence is available—that he expected all their provision to be terrestrial.
	I confess that I am not sure whether radio counts as terrestrial—I assume that it does not—but it is clear that terrestrial provision involves copper or cable, including fibre. Very large parts of the country do not have a cable connection, and neither will they get it in the foreseeable future, if we continue to proceed in the same way. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred to BT thresholds. Fortunately, we are all connected by copper through the universal service obligation, but the trigger levels in my constituency are set at varying levels, including 300 people, 350 people and others. BT has tried to explain why different trigger levels apply to different exchanges, but I confess that I have no idea about the justification for setting different levels. It seems to me that provision will either be viable in relation to a set number of connections or not. I do not fully understand that issue.
	As the Minister well knows, pioneering work is taking place in Bottisham in my constituency using the radio antenna-based system. However, even those involved in that pioneering work, which was established a year ago, have faced major problems. They received no grant from the regional development agency, as it was not yet at a stage at which it could give any money for the project. The only grant came from the Countryside Agency, which is not a body that one readily expects to invest in such work. However, another problem arose thereby—the radio-based system was such a success in the villages for which it was originally founded that the neighbouring villages all wanted to join in and link up through more radio antenna, although the Countryside Agency has now put its hands up and said, "Sorry, there is no more money; this is not really our field, although we were happy to put a little money in to try out the project and set it up." Once the system got going and those involved received the initial grant, which allowed them to reduce the connection fee from about £150 to £49, the rate of subscription from businesses and private individuals quadrupled. That is a clear link, but my constituents are paying the price of innovation. Although those involved have overtaken the field, a lot of villages are now unable to set up the system.
	There is another problem that affects rural constituencies throughout the country—the existence of cabling only in some locations. Cables were often installed in village centres, but did not cover much of the outlying ground. My village is a case in point. Of course, not every village that is cabled is connected to broadband. NTL, the operator in my area, has yet to do that work in many cases. The additional problem is that, if part of the village is connected up via cable, it dramatically reduces the potential for the rest of the community to be cabled or to meet a trigger level for BT or any other system. In some cases, partial cabling is more disadvantageous than no cabling at all. The only dedicated, discrete exchange in my constituency to have met the threshold is that of the city of Ely. Hon. Members will probably be surprised that that was not done ages ago.

Robert Key: It had a Liberal MP.

James Paice: I have to say to my hon. Friend that it is a long while since Ely had a Liberal MP. I cannot even claim the victory of having ousted him. The Boundary Commission ousted him from Ely, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) who finally removed him from this place. I am pleased to say that, ever since, the whole of eastern Cambridgeshire, as well as most of the rest of the county, has been represented by Conservative Members.
	My hon. Friend forces me to digress. The point is that in my very large constituency—it is roughly similar in size to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon—only one exchange is enabled. Some parts of the constituency are enabled because they use exchanges from over the border, but large chunks are not, and many exchanges have neither thresholds nor any real likelihood of their being set.
	I turn to the situation in schools in Cambridgeshire. The regional consortiums expect all but three of the schools in the county to be connected by August 2004. I am not sure which those three are, but I suspect that they are not in my constituency. The Minister said that Government expenditure in the order of £1 billion will open up opportunities for communities, but the advice that I am receiving suggests that there are serious implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned the whole issue of the network and regulations. Another issue is cost. Will the Minister clarify how he expects all the schools in rural and more remote areas to be linked up? Clearly, it will not be done by cable. The only options are radio, satellite or the leasing of copper from BT. I suspect that leasing copper will be the commonest approach, because it is already there. The problem is that it is not a capital but an ongoing cost. Without wishing to get into the problems of educational funding and school budgets—

Robert Key: Oh, go on.

James Paice: I shall resist the blandishments of my hon. Friend.
	If the connection is made by leasing copper, it becomes an annual charge on the education budget for the local education authority or, indeed, the individual school. Is long-term provision being made for that, or will the cost have to be absorbed within the schools budget, as in so many other circumstances? I hope that the Minister can shed some light on that.
	It seems to me, having not only listened to hon. Members who have spoken with immense knowledge, but gained information from elsewhere, that one problem is that we are concentrating on today's technology. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said that we must not concentrate on ADSL. He is right about that, but perhaps we should not concentrate on radio or satellite either. At serious risk of showing my lack of knowledge, my information suggests that fibre will have to be used to accommodate the much faster speeds of connectivity that we will face in the not-too-distant future. The Minister was a little dismissive about future developments in technology and tended to concentrate on today.
	Choosing fibre means ducting. I revert to the Government's expenditure of more than £1 billion to develop their services when only £30 million is available for developing broadband in a huge swathe of the United Kingdom that represents approximately a quarter of the population. That raises the question of value for money. I agree with the Minister that the Government should not subsidise such work, but they should consider using public money to facilitate development throughout the country. I am not convinced that that is happening.
	I am not a fan of development agencies, but nevertheless, the East of England Development Agency has a programme. It received the grand sum of £3.2 million for East Anglia out of the £30 million to which I referred. It contributed another £2.6 million from its resources. It received more than 100 applications from the eastern region for the original consultancy grant of up to £10,000. Yesterday was the closing date for applications for projects, and I am told that there were more than 30. The development agency anticipates that only a handful will get the go-ahead because of the availability of resources.
	There is no long-term prospect of more money. Earlier, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) chided my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the Conservative party's budgetary proposals, yet we are considering, to all intents and purposes, a one-off sum of £30 million from the Government. That is not a lot of money compared with £1 billion for connecting public services. Rather than arguing for more money, there is a case for the Government's spending the £1 billion more productively.
	I strongly endorse the competitive approach and stimulating demand to encourage innovation. I have no doubt that once we have the facility, demand will expand dramatically. It is easy to declare in the House that we should encourage businesses to sign up, register and so on, but it is difficult to effect that. Something that is not there will not necessarily grab interest. Once broadband is available and the business down the road starts using it, or children return from school and ask why they cannot do their school work at home on broadband when they can do that at school, it will drive up registration and connections locally.
	I strongly welcome the Minister's personal commitment, obvious knowledge and the announcements that he made today, but much of the £1 billion has already been spent or at least allocated. Although the Minister did not use the hackneyed phrase, "joined-up government" when he spoke of the committee that he will establish and chair, it is a little late for such an approach. Much of the public money has been spent.
	There is no obligation on those who are spending the public money on connecting public services to have any regard for what can be done for the rest of the community. It is fine for the Minister to say that there is no reason why the infrastructure provision for public service could not be available to others, but in many cases it is not. There is no obligation on providers to make it so. The quicker the Minister deals with that in his new committee, the quicker connection will happen.
	I suspect that the pass has been sold. As the Minister said, he was appointed only a few months ago and is trying hard to catch up and regain the ground that the Government lost. For many areas, of which my constituency is typical, there is no genuine prospect of new infrastructure, be it fibre-based cabling or large-scale radio systems. The figures that I cited from the East of England Development Agency show that the majority of projects will not receive the funding that they need to get off the ground. I suspect that the areas where village schools are connected use leased copper. My information is that most of them will use the full 2 megabytes committed by the Government. While I do not pretend to understand it fully, I am told that there is a big question mark over whether the infrastructure for backhaul is as substantial as the Minister would have us believe.
	I do not doubt the Minister's commitment but I fear that, for my constituents and for many others in rural areas, there is no real likelihood of getting access to broadband in the very near future, unless he picks things up and shakes them vigorously to make things happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made a number of proposals. I would like to think that the Minister will give us a commitment that, in every village that has a school—that is by no means every village—the connection to the school will also be available for the rest of the community and that public money will be spent constructively. That will be a considerable step forward, although it will still leave many villages unconnected. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will give us some commitment.

Andrew Robathan: With the leave of the House, I wish briefly to touch on a few points and reiterate some of the points made by my hon. Friends and others. Everyone has been very nice about the Minister today. That is understandable because he is a decent cove but I hope that he will give good responses to some of these important questions.
	I was somewhat curtailed, not least by the arrival of people such as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), before the statement at 2.30 pm and I would like to touch on a few points that were left out. Some good points have been made. I will not bring them all up. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that he did not know much about the subject but he showed a tremendous grasp of the issues. He brought out many of those that need to be dealt with.
	None of us has a crystal ball and knows in what form broadband will develop. The broadband delivery systems that we are talking about today may be archaic in 20 years. Wireless or cable may have taken over completely from it—who knows?
	Good points were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about EU state aid, whether permission was required and whether the East of England Development Agency was behaving lawfully. The money given to RDAs was mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). There were concerns about the £30 million being given to RDAs and the £1 billion being spent on public service networks. My hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), raised the issue of securing access in rural areas for small and medium enterprises so that they can be competitive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) wanted it to be noted that he is very concerned about what happens in Cumbria. The point about the universal service obligation was made well, too.
	As various of my hon. Friends said, Conservative Members particularly believe in competition but the Government do as well. We have an excellent opportunity. Lord Currie and his board at the new Ofcom are in a position to stimulate the competitive environment, protect consumers and liberalise the marketplace. Although we all know that he is somewhat linked to the Labour party, it appears to me—and I have not met him—that he has a pretty agile mind. Perhaps he will be in a particularly good position to deal with the issue. My hosts at the CBI annual dinner will be slightly distressed because he is on record as saying that BT should be broken up but we need a flexible approach from the regulator and from the Government. We need an enabling approach, not a dirigiste or controlling approach.
	As the Minister prepares to respond to the many points that have been made, I say that, in general, we think that regulation cannot replicate the good operation of the competitive market, and we look forward to hearing what he has to say about how that competitive market will develop.

Stephen Timms: We have had an interesting and helpful debate with many contributions, most of which started with Members confessing that they knew virtually nothing about the subject, but then demonstrating to the House that they knew a great deal and understood the issues well. I shall respond to some of the detailed and important points that were raised and add a few more of my own.
	The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) talked in his opening speech—as he said, it was a little curtailed, but he managed to cover a good deal of ground—about primary schools. He was concerned that many schools were limited to midband. As I said in my intervention, the current standard for primary schools is 2 megabytes per second two-way, and the target set by the Department for Education and Skills is 100 per cent. coverage at that standard by 2006. By last December, 16 per cent. of primary schools had reached that stage—a much higher proportion of secondary schools had reached it—which illustrates that we have a long way to go before we have provided primary schools with the functionality to which we are committed. I hope that that deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about rolling out the infrastructure to public services. As I say, there is a long way to go: the window is fairly narrow and we must ensure that we get the process right over the next few months in order to maximise the benefits for schools, and for other users.
	The hon. Member for Blaby spoke about the need to promote usage. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) for what he said about the Department of Trade and Industry's UK online for business programme, which is about helping businesses to understand how best to exploit technology—not only broadband, but other technological opportunities—to improve their performance. I was pleased to note that the Economist Intelligence Unit recently described the UK online for business programme as
	"one of the world's strongest and most innovative government projects supporting e-business".
	It has a network of more than 300 advisers delivering advice to businesses across the country through business links and other channels. It has helped some 100,000 businesses over the past 12 months and 175,000 have accessed support through its excellent website.
	Hon. Members may have noticed the current advertising campaign, featured prominently on London taxis, promoting the business benefits of broadband. It is part of the work that UK online for business has in hand this summer. The programme will introduce a mobile broadband demonstrator to support events run by it, providing another means of getting the broadband message out more widely. The broadband show is a project run in the south-west to promote the tourism and aerospace industries. It is putting on roadshows to demonstrate the business benefits of broadband to small firms in those two sectors.
	There is a lot of activity going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) referred to the campaign of the Communications Workers Union—Broadband Britain—which is supported across the House. The British Computer Society, with its European computer driving licence initiative, is another example.
	The hon. Member for Blaby was, I thought, unduly dismissive of the work of the East Midlands Development Agency. He will find that EMDA will play a leading role in the months ahead in organising public sector demand for broadband in a way that also extends the benefits of broadband services to other users. I shall explain a little more later about how I view that working.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East referred to the need to deal with the challenges of broadband content. We need compelling content that will encourage people to access broadband, and much is happening in that respect, too. Last week, EMI reached agreement with more than 20 online retailers to offer digital downloads of their music—an important step forward.
	We in the Department are looking to see whether there is a role that we might play to support projects to stimulate the development of a compelling broadband content.
	My hon. Friend referred to the importance of the development of skills. Earlier I spoke about the launch of the e-skills agency, which will have an important role, and about the Government's skills strategy, which will be published later this year. He asked about Norwich. It is indeed the case that there is a project in Norwich with a grant from the EEDA which will establish a network of ducts in the city for service providers to use in establishing their services. The way in which that has been structured means that it will not fall foul of state aid rules, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there needs to be clarity about that. More work may well need to be done to establish that clarity. From his important contribution to the Communications Bill Committee, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill includes a clause to facilitate exactly that approach: to give access to the communications code to organisations other than telecommunications operators, so that local authorities and others can make contributions of that kind to facilitate the investments that we need.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to 3G mobiles. As a proud and enthusiastic customer for third generation mobile services as of the past week—we have had a 3G service for less than a month, but there will be another two by the end of the year—I agree with him that 3G may well prove in due course to be an important mechanism for extending broadband availability to rural areas as well as to the city areas in which it has been introduced so far.
	My hon. Friend asked about the support from mobile companies for the Internet Watch Foundation. I agree with him about the valuable work that it does. As he said, it is a successful example of self-regulation. I am pleased to tell him that the proprietor of the first 3G service is contributing to the Internet Watch Foundation, as are Key Mobile, mm02, and Vodafone. Increasingly, as image and video content become available via mobile, it will be important that those companies support the work of the foundation.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) drew attention to the fact that there may be an age divide rather than a geographical divide in this area. There is a serious geographical divide as regards rural areas, but he is right to draw attention to the need to encourage what is called silver surfing among retired people. The UK online centres—the network that the Government have established—are targeting older people and others who may not have had the opportunities that others have had, and are doing so with some success.
	I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the confusion about the data on broadband. Oftel, which produces authoritative data for the UK, told me that we have 1.9 million broadband connections as of the end of April. Sometimes it is difficult to get a handle on what is happening elsewhere, and that is made more difficult by the speed at which things are moving. When I was appointed to this post, an item in one of the computing papers announced that the UK was neck and neck with Croatia on broadband. That picture has change beyond recognition in the intervening 12 months. We periodically commission research ourselves about the position in other countries so that we have data, but things move so quickly that it is difficult to keep track.
	The hon. Gentleman made the point about the different experiences of the work of RDAs and the devolved Administrations in this area. It is important that we maintain transparency and a strongly competitive market for broadband provision. That characterises many of the RDA initiatives about which we have heard. It is important not to introduce delays in the achievement of improvements in public services as a result of aggregating public sector demand. I do not think that we need do that, however. The hon. Gentleman is right to sound a warning, but it is essential to take the initiative forward without delaying those vital improvements.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham also asked where people without broadband at home could go to take advantage of the service. In fact, 93 per cent. of public libraries offer broadband internet connection—100 per cent. in Northern Ireland. The People's Network has been most effective in putting almost every public library online and the great majority offer broadband access. In addition, much of the network of 6,000 UK online centres, which includes libraries, has adopted broadband. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are also commercial initiatives to establish kiosks in post offices.

Robert Key: Villages throughout the country, including Great Wishford and South Newton in my constituency, are addressing the homework problem, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred, by using the village hall, holding clubs at weekends and two or three times a week for that purpose.

Stephen Timms: That is an important point and I welcome such initiatives, which have social advantages as well as extending the benefits of technology.
	The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made a powerful case for the importance of broadband in rural areas. I entirely agree with the points that he made. The competitiveness benefits are crucial for businesses in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that, even after all the published trigger levels have been reached, there will still be areas without broadband. I understand that BT expects to have published trigger levels for exchanges by the summer. Once they have all been met, the availability of ADSL will reach about 90 per cent., but, even then, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, 10 per cent. of households will not have access.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing about rural broadband. I am establishing a rural broadband team in the DTI, to work with DEFRA and the RDAs to address the issue. Much activity on broadband is already under way. Reference has already been made to the £30 million fund established by the DTI, and I can give the House a couple of examples of its use.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to broadband brokerage in the east of England. The project was set up in June 2002 to allow people and companies to register their interest in broadband on a website. I gather that Diss and Felaw Maltings will be the first communities to obtain broadband through that scheme. The idea is that once demand in an area has reached a particular threshold a partnership is established with a local authority to form a community network. Service providers are then approached to identify the most cost-effective solution for the community.
	Buckfastleigh in Devon is demonstrating how broadband can be brought into key facilities in a rural town. Broadband demonstration centres are being set up in Scotland. The point is not that we believe that we can solve all the problems with that £30 million but that, through those pilots, we can develop and demonstrate solutions that can be much more widely applied once they have been properly assessed and understood.
	There is certainly much more to do. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked about the attractiveness of a universal service obligation for broadband. We have considered that, although it is not yet justified. For example, in places where broadband is available—even in London, where take-up is highest—the figure is still only about 10 per cent. If we were to impose a universal service obligation for broadband, it would impose significant costs on all customers and we have not yet reached the point where the scale of take-up, where the service is available, is sufficiently high to warrant the imposition of such costs on everybody. With things moving so quickly, however, that position may change. Certainly, we need to keep the question under review in the months ahead.
	Satellite is a viable alternative for businesses in rural areas, and there are a number of examples of satellite-based broadband solutions being used successfully by businesses, including in business centres, in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) presided recently at a public meeting on broadband options, which I notice included a welcoming contribution from Sir Alan Ayckbourn—the meeting took place at the Stephen Joseph theatre in Scarborough. A presentation was made by Aramiska, a satellite broadband service provider, which meets the needs of businesses in Yorkshire. For many businesses, satellite will be the best and easiest way to access services. There have been many examples of regional development agencies helping to defray the costs of satellite broadband access, which, as was pointed out, is quite expensive. The South East England Development Agency has enabled a number of businesses in Hastings to gain access to satellite broadband services, and the scheme is being extended across the region. Other RDAs are doing similar things.
	Will wireless technology be a solution? Yes, again, I think it will be. I hope that, for example, when a school is broadband-enabled, it may be possible for a wireless antenna to be erected, perhaps even at the school, for the broadband provision supporting the school to be used also to provide backhaul for a wireless broadband service, using the antenna based at the school. A variety of approaches of that kind will be needed, but that might be one way in which a community around a school could be broadband-enabled through wireless, taking advantage of the investment that we are making.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for the comments that he has just made. Will he go further, however, and consider the absence of any obligation on the public services to have regard for community provision? Will he—I was going to say, "issue an edict"—put an obligation on the public services that when they install broadband in schools, libraries or anywhere else, they should have regard to making it available for the rest of the community? That would be a huge step forward.

Stephen Timms: That will be precisely the aim of the ministerial broadband steering group to which I referred in my opening remarks. It will bring together the Ministers responsible from all the Departments, and its aim will be to ensure that the investment that is being made on behalf of public services is managed in a way that opens up access to other users too. The way in which that can happen is well illustrated by the project being taken forward by Advantage West Midlands, which I described. It has set up a special purpose vehicle, separate from the RDA, that is commissioning a broadband network for all the schools and universities in the region, enabling the network provided to be opened up to other users too. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could give a commitment that, in every village that has a school, the broadband connection will be available to the wider community. I think that it will be clear from what I have said that that is exactly our aim. I cannot give a date by which that will happen, but I will certainly welcome opportunities to update the House on progress as we take the work forward.

Brian White: People often say that data protection issues create a barrier to community use of facilities. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Information Commissioner is involved in those discussions and ensures that there is best practice guidance so that data protection does not become such an issue?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. With networks used, for example, to send electronic patient records around the health service, he is absolutely right to suggest that such issues need to be addressed carefully. They certainly will be.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) also made a thoughtful contribution, but there was one point on which I did not agree with him. I think he said that 90 per cent. of broadband is from BT. However, on the latest figures, there are 1.9 million broadband connections in the UK, 1 million of which are cable modem connections and just over 900,000 of which are ADSL. The hon. Member for Blaby pointed out that only half the ADSL are bought from BT Retail. The rest are bought from companies such as AOL, Freeserve and Pipex. I understand that, according to some estimates, about 300 retailers of ADSL products use the BT Wholesale ADSL product. It is then retailed by someone else.
	I was pleased that the hon. Member for Blaby was able to compliment the South West of England Regional Development Agency on the work that it is taking forward. I agree with him. I have been impressed by what I have seen of its work. I am glad that he was able to refer to NTL's enthusiasm for wireless broadband, and I am aware that NTL has been keen on using the 10 GHz part of the spectrum. As I have said, I think that wireless will prove to be important.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me a question that has come up several times. Will it be possible to have commercial traffic running over public sector networks? We will ensure that in delivering connections to, for example, a village primary school we make affordable backhaul available for broadband services that can be used by other businesses and households. That is the central task on which the ministerial group will be working on. The hon. Gentleman used the term piggybacking. It is right that, if a substantial investment is made, we need to ensure that other users benefit without compromising the needs of public service users. They need to be met properly.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked why different trigger levels are set for different exchanges. That is a commercial matter for BT, but one of the reasons for that is that the costs of backhaul differ markedly depending on where the exchange is. In some exchanges in remote areas, a substantial investment is needed to provide the backhaul into the main network. In other exchanges, the cost of that part of the upgrading is much less. That is the big differentiator in the costs of upgrading.

Robert Key: I have been in the House for some time. May I remind the Minister that one of the principal problems encountered when the Central Electricity Generating Board controlled access to three phase electricity throughout rural areas was that it said that a factory in a remote village would have to pay all the upstream charges for upgrading the lines all the way back to the board's generating station? That could cost a small company £25,000. Anyone else that came in then received the provision free. That was unfair and outrageous; thank goodness, it does not happen any more. There is a parallel and we need to be careful.

Stephen Timms: It sounds a very interesting parallel, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
	I was pleased that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire did not chide me for not having yet made my visit to Bottisham; I am looking forward to doing so in the near future. He referred to the East of England Development Agency grant funding, but I do not think that we should look to such initiatives to deal with problems in the long term and as pilots to work out how to do things. We need to move towards normal commercial arrangements in rural areas, just as in urban areas, so that we provide the services that businesses and others need so much.
	The hon. Member for Blaby and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made interesting comparisons with the way in which things operate in other countries. Germany certainly has many more broadband connections than in the United Kingdom. However, as they pointed out, Deutsche Telekom has 90 per cent. of the market in Germany and prices there are drifting up and the growth of the German broadband installed base is very slow at present. Prices in the United Kingdom are coming down—they are already lower than those in Germany—and growth is very fast. My opposite number in Germany was keen to find out more about how we are managing matters in the UK because he wants more competition in the German market. There is no doubt that that is the way forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East mentioned the Communications Bill a couple of times. It will give Ofcom the new role of supporting innovation and investment in communications networks and services, and I agree with those who spoke about the critical role that Ofcom will play in the months ahead. I have very high expectations of Ofcom under the leadership of Lord Currie and its chief executive Stephen Carter, who was formerly with NTL.
	I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated in this important debate. There is a significant economic challenge for the UK. We have identified ways to address the challenges, especially by ensuring that rural areas throughout the UK, as well as urban areas, will have the benefit of broadband services. I hope that I made clear the Government's determination to address those challenges and that hon. Members will follow progress in the critical few months ahead with great interest.

Keith Hill: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION
	 — 
	Pharmacies

Ian Stewart: On 1 May, as we celebrate the sixth year since the magnificent Labour victory in 1997, I present a petition signed by about 2,100 of my constituents. It says that the Office of Fair Trading's proposals for the unrestricted opening of pharmacies that are able to dispense national health service prescriptions will have a serious and detrimental effect on pharmacies and the communities that they serve.
	Local community pharmacies play an important role in our communities, and their clinical involvement is recognised in the Government's NHS plan. They play a much wider role in our local communities than most people think, even to the extent that my local pharmacy will take prescriptions to the houses of people who are disabled, infirm or elderly. That provides a further contact for those people, who are sometimes dislocated in their communities.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the constituents of Eccles to 'Save our Pharmacy Services', signed by 2,100 people,
	Declares that we, the undersigned, urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities,
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

CHRISTOPHER'S HOSPICE (GUILDFORD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Keith Hill.]

Sue Doughty: I am glad to have the opportunity to debate such an important issue. It must be the lot of all newly elected Members to wonder why good causes do not get the support that they are promised and deserve. We secure Adjournment debates that may result in a new way forward or merely provide the Minister with another opportunity to tell us how much is being done while failing to deal with the core issue that gave rise to the debate in the first place. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions, deal with the realities of the situation and give a strong commitment to resolve the problems that Christopher's faces along with other children's hospices.
	Christopher's is a hospice for life-limited children. It is based in Guildford and run by CHASE, the children's hospice service. It is a regional centre for palliative care, providing support to children and their families in an area that includes south and south-west London, Surrey and West Sussex. It is a special place for the children and their families. The Minister will understand that as time is limited, I cannot describe all the services that it provides or the sort of place that it is, but I hope that he will accept an invitation to visit the hospice to see for himself the work that is being done.
	CHASE currently provides support in the community and at the hospice for 160 families. Its target is to support 300 families that are spread across 25 primary care trusts and those local authorities that have responsibility for children's services. The hospice is a success. It was built at a cost of £3.8 million with enormous fundraising support from the community, which it continues to receive. It opened its doors in November 2001, around the same time that PCTs were beginning to find their own way with their budgets.
	Like any facility in the south-east, the hospice faces the usual problems in the health service of recruitment and retention of staff, a shortage of children's nurses, which is a specialised field, and difficulty with finding accommodation in the area. Fortunately, we have had some help from St. Faith's charity to mitigate that because medical staff at Christopher's do not qualify for key-worker housing. Five out of the nine beds are occupied and that will rise to seven in July. One must ask, however, when free nursing care will be provided for life-limited children.
	The Minister will be aware that it is easier to obtain corporate support for the capital costs for building a hospice than it is for the running costs of any charity. Indeed, there has been a downturn in charity funding as a result of the downturn in the stock market. Money is in short supply. Although CHASE receives money from the New Opportunities Fund, that covers only 10 per cent. of its running costs for each of the next three years and has to cover its community services, palliative care, respite care and the end-of-life services. Will the Minister confirm that lottery money will not replace Government money for essential health care?
	Christopher's receives no national health funding as such. It got money for three children to receive palliative care while their houses were being adjusted, but that is all. The hospice and CHASE do not expect the NHS to pick up all the running costs. It provides a special service, which is the nature of hospices, that is outside what people would expect of the NHS. But Christopher's works hard with local families and works on a regional basis to ensure that services are not duplicated. It supports families when they face enormous stress. That support is important for a family with a child who may be dying because many families break up when a child dies. Christopher's keeps those families functioning.
	There are costs of care that Christopher's meets which, under other circumstances, would be met by the health service. It pays fees to the local doctors' surgery for two named doctors to visit part time four times a week and for call-out services. That ensures continuity so that the families and doctors know one another when the children visit or stay there. At the moment, that costs £48,000 a year and we expect a substantial increase next year, but we must remember that that is for a national health service.
	The problem is not new. I have raised it since I was elected. Indeed, back in the 1980s the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), in her capacity as Health Minister, said:
	"The Government's objective is to work towards a position in which the contribution from public funds available to voluntary hospices and similar organisations matches that of voluntary giving. This will provide a clear basis to plan ahead."—[Official Report, 15 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 847W.]
	That funding did not become available.
	In a debate in 2001 the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said that children's hospices receive, on average, only 5 per cent. of their running costs. Christopher's does not even get that. As I have pointed out in the House on other occasions, the NHS saves money through the work of Christopher's. When a child leaves the Royal Marsden hospital, possibly at the end of its life, freeing up a place for another child, the funding for that child stops, but the child's health needs do not.
	Last year—51 weeks ago in fact—having followed up this issue on behalf of CHASE, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and I met the then Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). That was a useful meeting, but another year has passed. We explained why primary care trusts do not fund children's hospices: there might be 25 trusts covering 160 children using the services in a population of 3 million. The Minister understood that hospices cannot go to PCTs for funding for just one or two children in the area. We agreed that children's hospices should be regionally based to use resources wisely, so as not to duplicate. Indeed, CHASE sited Christopher's in Guildford so that it could be the provider for the region, not just for the town.
	The hospice had its formal, royal opening last October, and having heard nothing after the meeting, I wrote in November to the Minister of State responsible for children's health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith). It took until March to get a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears). She stated that funding is available from the PCTs, which are responsible for delivering services locally. It is as if none of that correspondence made any difference. A London PCT will not pay for a child in Guildford—that is a fact.
	Thankfully, the number of life-limited children in any PCT area is likely to be small. We do not even know how many there are. However, CHASE has approached trusts, and it does not get an answer. With so few children, the costs do not even register on their budget lines. The Under-Secretary suggested in her letter that
	"funds are available for disabled children through local authorities. Respite care breaks can be funded through the carer's grant and the quality protects programme."
	However, the carer's grant supports carers, not hospices. There is no mechanism to take that money and pay a hospice for respite care. The grant deals with AIDS facilities and others. The website for the quality protects programme says nothing about hospices. We escalated the matter by making inquiries, and got a very nice e-mail in reply. It does not mention hospices, and it does not answer our question, "Can you fund hospice care?" All that we have is the new opportunities fund.
	Both Christopher's and CHASE are brilliantly run by first-rate people. The chief executive of Christopher's knows exactly what he is doing, and the chair of the trustees knows exactly what she is doing. The fund-raising goes on, and we are fortunate that it does. We should be able to expect money from the cancer plan, but we will not get cancer cash. The good news for the children is that most of them get better or die from other conditions, so it is no good our looking to the cancer plan for funding.
	The first child who died in Christopher's was Matthew Ashton of Camberley. He died of a brain tumour on 5 January 2002. Eight days before, just after Christmas, he came from the Royal Marsden hospital, which could do nothing more for him medically. He needed 24-hour morphine, and he came to Christopher's. He was visited by Gianfranco Zola, which was lovely for him and the hospice. That visit was very much appreciated and it made a lot of difference to everyone. His family were able to stay, and because Christopher's has special facilities for the care of children after they have died, the family stayed a further eight days so that other family and friends could come and say goodbye to him in the Mistral suite. However, when Matthew left the Royal Marsden, even though he needed 24-hour care, the NHS funding stopped, as it did for the five children receiving end-of-life care who died in March this year.
	It has been suggested that we wait for the national service framework for children. There is a sub-committee for children with disabilities on which the Association of Children's Hospices has one representative, so no doubt the report will contain a short paragraph; but will it deliver any funding? It appears that the care of dying children is not important enough to be funded by the taxpayer. What do the Government plan to do about funding the health care of dying children?
	I want to know how the initiatives described in the letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford, will deliver the funds for that health care. We cannot find out. Are there case studies to show how it happens? The Association of Children's Hospices cannot see it happening and we cannot find anything. We want to know how much longer children's hospices have to wait until they are told what is available, while in reality little is received. I want to know why children in hospices do not receive free nursing care.
	How can I explain to all those people who raised £2 million for CHASE last year that the Government are not prepared to fund the health care of dying children? I want an assurance that their motives are not cynical. Is it because those people are good fund raisers and CHASE raises money itself that we do not get national health service money? I hope not, because that would be an insult to those hard-working fund raisers.
	In using such phrases, it is not my intention to play a big emotional card—that would be easy, but wrong—but we do not seem to be making our case. Ahead of the debate, I made it clear to the Minister's office that I need real answers. I do not want a recitation of the good works of the Government—we have had that, and it is not working. I am not here to score political points. All I want to know is what support the Government plan to provide for the health care of the children at Christopher's.

David Lammy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on securing this debate on an issue that is of concern to her and to many hon. Members, and on the great sincerity and tremendous vigour with which she pursues it. I am well aware of the excellent services provided by children's hospices, especially the hospice to which she refers. My constituency is served by the Haven House hospice in Waltham Forest, and we are grateful for all the good work that hospices do. As the hon. Lady would expect, the Government are absolutely committed to helping children with life-threatening illnesses and we value and support the tremendous contribution made by the hospice movement.
	This is a complicated area and there is much to say. Children with life-threatening conditions need a very special form of care. First and foremost, they are children and they want to behave and be treated like other children, but the care should be tailored to the individual nature of the illness, its progression and the variety of individual family circumstances and preferences. All those factors are relevant to the support that is offered. We as a Government have long recognised that respite, short-break care is essential, as it allows the family time to rest and enables them to continue to care for the ill child, siblings and themselves. It also brings the opportunity for peer socialising for children and young people, which can be difficult to access elsewhere.
	We also know that the death of a child is the most devastating experience any parent can have. How children die, how they are supported in their dying and the quality of after-death care have a major impact on how families cope with their grief. Children and families have individual needs that should be recognised; they should be afforded time and space and treated with respect and dignity. Hospices can have a major role in all of this, from the overall approach to the care pathway, to the smaller but individually life-enhancing elements of care.
	The way in which the hospice movement has evolved means that buildings are quite often put in place before discussions have been held about how the services will be supported. We must ensure that there is more synergy between capital funding and revenue funding.
	The hon. Lady will know that the first children's hospice came about in about 1982. We have had 20 years of children's hospices, and more are being built. We have more than 20 now. More are being built because good local people come together and want to provide. They want a charitable facility. Important discussions about ongoing revenue are essential and vital, so there is a complicating factor in this relatively new hospice development.
	We are aware of the difficulties and have been working with and supporting the Association for Children with Life-Threatening and Terminal Conditions and their Families in producing guidance on effective approaches to providing the range of palliative care that is necessary. We also have a continuing dialogue with the Association of Children's Hospices, which is enormously helpful as many hospices, as I have explained, are in their infancy, and developing. Some are only a year or so away from their official opening. That is one reason why the funding base for children's hospices has not been well embedded.
	In terms of securing health funding, it is for primary care trusts to negotiate locally what sort of services are needed in their communities. To do so, they must have a genuine relationship with the voluntary sector to see how those services can be provided. There must be a proper discussion at local level that relates to funding decisions. I urge hospices to get into that discussion—both those established and those in planning—with their PCT partners and their strategic health authorities.

Sue Doughty: CHASE has attempted to contact all its PCTs but they do not reply, even to letters.

David Lammy: The Department of Health would look into any issue where a health provider had written a letter and had not received a reply.
	I say with as much sincerity as I can that the Department has rightly come to the conclusion that it cannot attempt to run the entire health service from Whitehall. As the hon. Lady knows, we have localised down to primary care trusts and to strategic health authorities. At the same time—this is different from the context in which she has raised these matters in the past—we have said to PCTs, "We have increased your allocations"—that is the fact—"way beyond inflation, between 7 and 9 per cent. You have this money for three years. You can now plan your cycle or journey, as it were, with different health providers over a range of issues for three years." That is a difference.
	Of course, primary care trusts are coming out of their infancy as new organisations and are clustering together. Strategic health authorities are taking an interest. That must be the right position. I am not saying that it is perfect, but what I have outlined must be the starting premise. Alongside that, as I shall explain, the national service framework for children and the work that we hope to do next year are vital, as they raise the game, concentrating the minds of people in primary care trusts and strategic health authorities on what they are doing and the standards that are in place. We are on a journey, but the funding that has been provided through the New Opportunities Fund adds up nationally to £14 million just on palliative care awards to hospices. In addition, there is the national service framework, a three-year period of funding, and an increase in funding, so I am sincere in saying we are in a stronger position in this area than we have been for some time.
	To get the most out of palliative care services for children, we need to remember what makes them different. The ideal is to have a range of services available that recognise that children's palliative care is unique because it is part of the journey of care and therefore of life, and not the end stage, as it is for adults. It is as much about the quality of living as the quality of dying. It is not just "what you do when nothing else is left". It should be part of the care provided as soon as it is clear that a child or young person has a life-threatening or life-limiting illness. It requires a comprehensive approach for the child and family, and challenges all patient and professional services to develop a wider understanding that palliative care is an active approach to management.
	That adds up to the need for real partnership, based on honest and open communication free, I hope, of jargon. Above all, it means thinking intelligently and humanely about the specific needs that a child or family may have, which can only be gained through partnership. That is the premise from which we start in the Department. That is what we are pushing and it is the thrust of the national service framework. It is the challenge in palliative care for children to which we expect our PCTs and strategic health authorities to step up. Partnerships need to focus more on areas where provision has been difficult in the past because of geographical spread. The hon. Lady will know that the desire of good people to open a children's hospice is such that there may be neighbouring hospices or hospices with a wide geographical spread. The Department of Health has little control over the demography of children's hospices, but we have to respond nevertheless to the need for tailored support for specific illnesses, conditions and age ranges for which there may have been a lack of provision in the past. We must also take into account the needs of minority ethnic communities, whose access to health and social services is less than it should be.
	What needs to be changed to help hospices to secure funding? There are a number of issues, but clearly if any initiative is to be funded, funding must be available to PCTs. If we expect them to take a view on what may be an increasing demand on their resources, we must ensure that they are aware of the potential and the benefits of hospice care. We must also work up a framework to guide and assist positive partnerships. We need to address those issues and I am glad that we can now do so from the strongest position that we have ever occupied. It may not yet be the gold standard that we all desire—the hon. Lady is an active campaigner on the issue—but we are in the strongest position and we have a good foundation. The money that we are providing to hospices through the New Opportunities Fund is also important, and is made available through the work of the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where that money is located, so to speak.
	Hon. Members will recall that in December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced the allocation of £148 billion to primary care trusts over the next three years, as I have outlined. That represents a cash increase of more than 30 per cent., and means that no PCT will receive an increase in funding of less than 28 per cent. over the next three years. From April this year, local PCTs will control over 75 per cent. of the NHS budget, and the average PCT budget will grow over the next three years by almost £42 million.

Sue Doughty: I hope I am not being too cynical, and I would not want to seem ungrateful for the NOF money—of course we are grateful for it—but from what has been said I am learning that PCTs should be paying towards hospices, but they are not. They have more money, partly from the Department of Health and partly from the lottery, and some of that should be going to the hospices. Are hospices still being funded mainly by lottery money? What about free nursing care? What about nursing care for children when they leave NHS facilities? Does the Department of Health have any direct responsibility?

David Lammy: The responsibility is that of the national health service. I make a distinction, which is not a mere semantic distinction—it may represent a fundamental difference of position, but I need to articulate it. The hon. Lady referred to the Department of Health. I have made it clear that the £148 billion is not Department of Health money; it has been allocated to primary care trusts.
	There is a great dichotomy. I have responsibility for diabetes, renal failure, pharmacy and dentistry. As the hon. Lady knows, in any health care economy, there are a range of important illnesses and conditions. Primary care trusts, with strategic health authorities providing performance management, must decide how that money is spent in a locality. As a Minister, I can tell the hon. Lady that it would be unusual if I had a meeting in my office and a group interested in a particular health issue did not say to me, "Minister, can you ring-fence the money when it gets down to the primary care trust, so that we know we will get it?"

Sue Doughty: I understand the point about not ring-fencing money. I am still having difficulty in understanding why a child who dies in a national health hospital has their nursing and medical care paid for, but a child who dies in a hospice from the same illness or renal failure or whatever does not.

David Lammy: The Department of Health acknowledges that hospices are arriving on the doorsteps of primary care trusts every year. The national service framework is the lever that will bring about change. I said that the Department of Health was not in the business of giving out that £143 billion, but we are in the business of setting clear standards and saying what we expect. I am advised by officials that the children's hospice movement eagerly awaits the national service framework, because it wants those standards as the basis on which to begin a dialogue with the primary care trust and the strategic health authority about the ways in which they can assist hospices.
	I hope that there is not too much distance between us. I understand the hon. Lady's frustration. As a Back Bencher, I raised similar frustrations with regard to my local hospice. My Department's responsibility is to set a clear direction of travel, but the picture today is much better than it has been in the past because of the New Opportunities Fund. The hon. Lady will know that St. Christopher's received £650,000, a significant amount of money, plus—

Sue Doughty: For the record, is the Minister referring to St. Christopher's hospice, which is different from Christopher's hospice?

David Lammy: The hon. Lady is quite right. Christopher's hospice received £650,000, and the CHASE Children's Hospice Service received £74,000 in bereavement and palliative care awards. The hon. Lady says that that money may be used for capital spending and other costs, and I understand that. The Department expects high standards and we continue to work with children's hospices to support them as best we can.What is said in the House is on the record and is available for the hospice movement and for children's hospices to use when they are discussing such matters with colleagues locally.
	The emerging findings highlight a compelling body of evidence from research and inspection reports that disabled children and their families do not always receive the support that they need. Moreover, there are particular concerns about services for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. More flexible child care and short-term breaks are needed, and more co-ordination is needed in planning. To improve co-operation between social services, the health service, schools and local education authorities, some areas have multi-agency groups at a senior level to plan and commission services. Some groups also involve housing, transport and leisure services to promote inclusion in the community and report to local strategic partnerships.
	The NSF is a 10-year strategy for improving the delivery of health and social services for children and young people, and maternity services. The outcome will be a coherent and integrated approach to services for sick and disabled children. It is already having an impact and that will grow with more funding coming on stream in successive years and the development of a better and more comprehensive understanding of the range and quality of services necessary to support our most vulnerable children and their families.
	I emphasise that we are sincere in our wish to achieve that. I do not think that the distance between the hon. Lady and the Government is too great. In the past, as they have sprung up children's hospices have suffered from a funding lacuna, partly as a result of not being able fully to access ongoing revenue. However, I believe that the money that has been allocated down and the establishment of the NSF and NOF represent a much stronger position than we have been in for some time. Any NSF should project forward 10 years. Throughout the House, we all accept—this is not a party political issue—that there have been historical capacity constraints and issues in the NHS. Today, on May day, only a very short period has passed since the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions, which will feed its way down.
	I believe that through the standards that have been set and the work of patients forums and scrutiny panels at a local level, as well as through the inspection regime that we have introduced, there is a more positive environment for the children's hospice movement. I am sure that the hon. Lady will continue to raise the issue, which the Government will continue to take seriously.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Six o'clock.